From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 2 04:34:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:34:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> <17CC1F64-73EC-4114-B71F-5F0471A74C5E@ella.com> <51A5BD50.9080804@cdt.org> Message-ID: On 31/05/2013, at 6:09 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Since we have a few volunteers to work on the text now and it's basically Friday, Joana and I have agreed to work on a very preliminary draft based on the outline Nnenna and others developed tomorrow over Skype at 18:00 UTC. Anyone who would like to join is more than welcome and can ping me at deborah.l.brown. Apologies that this is not a particularly convenient time for those on the other side of the Atlantic. > > We will then share this text on this list so that anyone who is interested in contributing edits may do so. That sounds great, many thanks. In due course we will also have to think about working on a response to the Enhanced Cooperation Working Group's questionnaire which will be coming out soon. And the next meeting of the Working Group will be on 6-8 November (thanks for your tweets Avri). I'll try to be join as an observer next time, funding permitting. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Wed Jun 5 10:52:00 2013 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:52:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Request for NGO partners for seminar course on digital media rights, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Greetings from Montreal! I¹m writing to ask if any Best-Bits subscribing NGOs (preferably those based in non-OECD countries located in Africa, Asia, or Latin America seeking to expand digital media rights policies) would like to consider being considered as Œresearch seminar clients¹ for a Fall 2013 course I¹m teaching on Œadvanced issues in media governance¹. What we would offer is an opportunity for the selected partner NGOs to have a small 3-4 person research team for a semester to prepare a Œpolicy brief¹ related to a digital media rights policy issue the NGO is working on. In other words, participating NGOs would essentially get free research assistance on a policy issue for which they need a policy brief by mid-December. The benefit to my students (mostly in development studies and political science) would be grounded experience with a Œreal¹ client and thus an opportunity to learn and also provide a civil society benefit. NGO participation would involve being available for about 3 Skype-based interviews in September-October, with students assigned to your organization. Participation would also involve delegating someone in your organization to read and provide feedback on a preliminary draft of the policy brief in mid-November. Finally, your NGO would be asked to fill out a brief survey based on the experience in early December. The policy brief would be available for you to use and hopefully post to your organization¹s website by mid-December. Please email me at becky.lentz at mcgill.ca if you would like to be considered for this partnership opportunity starting in September. Best, Becky Lentz -------- Becky Lentz, PhD Assistant Professor in Communication Studies Department of Art History and Communication Studies McGill University 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 514.398.4995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 09:29:23 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:29:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all, we just got confirmation that HRW has a speaking slot to make the intervention. They're towards the list, so it's not guaranteed. The session appears to be running a bit behind, but here's the direct link to the webstream again so you have it handy. http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/23rd-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-27-may-14-june-2013/2178978643001/ Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it > is within the 2 minutes space we have. > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Thanks Joana! > > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make > interventions > > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We > have > > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for > the > > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session > 1500 > > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement > on > > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > > confirmation email and click the link. > > > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 > hours > > across many time zones. > > > > Best, > > Deborah > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> Dear Anriette and all, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period > of > >> time. This was amazing! > >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: > http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > >> Please, let's spread it! > >> best > >> joana > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >> @joana_varon > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > anriette at apc.org>wrote: > >> > >>> Dear all > >>> > >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > >>> > >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further > >>> names. > >>> > >>> Best > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> +1 from me. > >>>> > >>>> MF > >>>> > >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >>>>> I support this text by Joy... > >>>>> > >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > >>>> > >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>> > >>>> Joy > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > >>>> Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi All > >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > >>>> > >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > >>>> > >>>>> Best, parminder > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > >>>> facilitating input and sign on. > >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > >>>> get this finalized. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Deborah > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA > >>> case > >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > >>>> opinion and expression". [2] > >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. > >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological > advancements > >>>>>> [1] > >>> > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >>>>>> [2] > >>> > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >>>>>> ENDS > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. > >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >>>> > >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer > >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > >>>> consumers* > >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>>> > >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > >>>> | > >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >>>> . Don't > >>>> print this email unless necessary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > >>>> . > >>>>>>> For more options, visit > >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Deborah Brown > >>>>>> Policy Analyst > >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org > >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >>>>>> @deblebrown > >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>>> @joana_varon > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>> www.apc.org > >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>> south africa > >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> IRP mailing list > >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 09:42:09 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:12:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> IT for Change supports the statement.... However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. parminder On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our > statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. > This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, > please, do so: > > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important > statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not > let recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine > previous efforts on other inter-related topics.) > > Kind regards > > Joana > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Thanks, Jeremy. > > I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already > endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email > address once they receive an email from the platform. > > For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > best > > joana > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is >> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* >> Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >> >> So we suggest to already start the first round of >> endorsements through this list while we take the time to >> submit the text at the Best Bits platform for collecting >> more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help us to >> upload the text? > > It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you > endorsed by email, please do so on the site too. > > Thanks. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 09:54:39 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:54:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the next 15 minutes or so? Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time pressed environment. Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: > > IT for Change supports the statement.... > > However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to understand > the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes were against > the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference between the > two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these organisations are > welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG issues. and also > especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet resolution' of the > WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. > > parminder > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear all, > > Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our statement > for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. > This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, > please, do so: > > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important statements > in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let > recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous > efforts on other inter-related topics.) > > Kind regards > > Joana > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Thanks, Jeremy. >> >> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >> once they receive an email from the platform. >> >> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>> >>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >>> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >>> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >>> us to upload the text? >>> >>> >>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>> email, please do so on the site too. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 10:04:23 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:04:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ Can you please check? Thanks. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. Can > you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their organization/name > included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the next 15 minutes > or so? > > Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time > pressed environment. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> IT for Change supports the statement.... >> >> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to understand >> the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes were against >> the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference between the >> two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these organisations are >> welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG issues. and also >> especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet resolution' of the >> WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our statement >> for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >> please, do so: >> >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important statements >> in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >> >> Kind regards >> >> Joana >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>> >>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>> >>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>>> >>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>> help us to upload the text? >>>> >>>> >>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>>> email, please do so on the site too. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>> >>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 10:05:47 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:05:47 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <1370863799.33045.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> <1370863799.33045.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Cross regional statement by governments is happening now: http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/23rd-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-27-may-14-june-2013/2178978643001/ Will send around the text when I locate it. Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA < nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr> wrote: > Hi, > Great job done. > > Regards > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > www.rtcb.bi > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > www.bytc.bi > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > ------------------------------ > *De :* Viktor Szabados > *À :* Joana Varon > *Cc :* "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" ; " > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> > *Envoyé le :* Lundi 10 juin 2013 12h51 > *Objet :* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on > PRISM, but the damage is already done > > Hello > > thanks for work. > > +1 > > vik > > 2013/6/10, Joana Varon : > > + 1. Thanks, Joy! > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rikke Frank Joergensen > > >> wrote: > > > >> Super proposal by Joy/ APC, I support it !**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Rikke**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto: > >> irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of > >> *Marianne > >> Franklin > >> *Sent:* 10. juni 2013 11:41 > >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on > >> PRISM, but the damage is already done**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> +1 from me. > >> > >> MF**** > >> > >> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote:**** > >> > >> I support this text by Joy...**** > >> > >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote:**** > >> > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > >> Rue's > >> office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the recommended > >> action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged approach to the > call > >> to action which is looking really good: > >> > >> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation > >> of > >> a global Internet based surveillance system by: > >> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a > >> new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological > >> advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report > >> a) > >> formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on > >> survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet > >> human > >> rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the > >> light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding > >> Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and > >> Remedy” > >> Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >> > >> Joy > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > >> Joana Varon wrote: > >> > Sure, Parminder. Lets**** > >> > >> remove company names. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > And thanks for the comprehension. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder < > >> parminder at itforchange.net**** > >> > >> > >> >* > >> *** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > Hi All > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some**** > >> > >> changes I would have liked to propose but due to the > >> urgency**** > >> > >> of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of > >> the** > >> ** > >> > >> companies involved should have not been mentioned in the**** > >> > >> statement. Can we still do it?.) > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with**** > >> > >> him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be > >> a**** > >> > >> useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to**** > >> > >> him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy > >> is*** > >> * > >> > >> still there? > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > Best, parminder > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Dear all, > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to**** > >> > >> the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state**** > >> > >> surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. > >> We** > >> ** > >> > >> are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might > >> be**** > >> > >> able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can**** > >> > >> still publish it and do outreach. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits**** > >> > >> be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will > >> post** > >> ** > >> > >> it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the**** > >> > >> meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable**** > >> > >> endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we > >> can**** > >> > >> add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a**** > >> > >> reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > >> HRC*** > >> * > >> > >> that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though**** > >> > >> not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up > >> with*** > >> * > >> > >> for facilitating input and sign on. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the**** > >> > >> last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the > >> process** > >> ** > >> > >> because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input > >> and** > >> ** > >> > >> to working together to get this finalized. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Best, > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Deborah > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights**** > >> > >> Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights**** > >> > >> addressing the PRISM/NSA case > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of**** > >> > >> ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ > >> regions.**** > >> > >> This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern > >> over**** > >> > >> recent revelations of surveillance of internet and > >> telephone**** > >> > >> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government > >> of** > >> ** > >> > >> the United States of America. Equally concerning is the**** > >> > >> provision of access to the results of that surveillance to**** > >> > >> other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the**** > >> > >> indication of the possible complicity of some of the > >> globally*** > >> * > >> > >> dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and > >> reach*** > >> * > >> > >> are universally distributed. These revelations raise the**** > >> > >> appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and > >> systematic**** > >> > >> disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 > >> and**** > >> > >> 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political > >> Rights** > >> ** > >> > >> (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal**** > >> > >> Declaration of Human Rights. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted**** > >> > >> Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that**** > >> > >> people have offline must also be protected online, in**** > >> > >> particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this**** > >> > >> session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression**** > >> > >> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state**** > >> > >> surveillance of communications with serious implications > >> for**** > >> > >> the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom > >> of*** > >> * > >> > >> opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that**** > >> > >> inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a > >> fertile** > >> ** > >> > >> ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the > >> right**** > >> > >> to privacy in communications and, consequently, also > >> threaten*** > >> * > >> > >> the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and**** > >> > >> expression". [2] > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by**** > >> > >> governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of**** > >> > >> expression and the Internet is important. But civil society > >> is** > >> ** > >> > >> extremely concerned that governments supporting this > >> statement** > >> ** > >> > >> are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent**** > >> > >> serious revelations about mass surveillance in the > >> PRISM/NSA**** > >> > >> case. Although the personal information disclosed under > >> this**** > >> > >> programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign**** > >> > >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in**** > >> > >> secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human > >> rights*** > >> * > >> > >> of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into**** > >> > >> the very heart of the data streams of the globally central**** > >> > >> service providers storing and communicating the majority of**** > >> > >> the world's digital communications is a backward step for**** > >> > >> human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This**** > >> > >> raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial**** > >> > >> commission of human rights violations and the inability of**** > >> > >> individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign**** > >> > >> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign**** > >> > >> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is**** > >> > >> needed. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and**** > >> > >> involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental > >> rights** > >> ** > >> > >> of their users globally to immediately suspend this > >> practice.*** > >> * > >> > >> Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed**** > >> > >> United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human**** > >> > >> Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of**** > >> > >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> We call for protection of those who have made**** > >> > >> these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not > >> be** > >> ** > >> > >> used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper > >> the**** > >> > >> legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We**** > >> > >> urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this > >> case** > >> ** > >> > >> and to support their efforts to combat violations of the**** > >> > >> fundamental human rights of all global citizens.**** > >> > >> Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > >> transparency*** > >> * > >> > >> and upholding the human rights of all. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights**** > >> > >> violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one**** > >> > >> foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom > >> of*** > >> * > >> > >> Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human**** > >> > >> Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a > >> global*** > >> * > >> > >> Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council**** > >> > >> could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by > >> convening** > >> ** > >> > >> a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of**** > >> > >> Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new**** > >> > >> General Comment on the right to privacy in light of**** > >> > >> technological advancements > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> [1] > >> > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> [2] > >> > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> ENDS > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman**** > >> > >> >> > >> >>**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. **** > >> > >> I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the**** > >> > >> framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it**** > >> > >> would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and**** > >> > >> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT**** > >> > >> constitute human rights violations, with specific details > >> to*** > >> * > >> > >> explain their stance. I believe all the language people > >> are**** > >> > >> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden > >> on*** > >> * > >> > >> others to show how our concerns are not justified. This > >> has**** > >> > >> more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything**** > >> > >> else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will**** > >> > >> probably never be made public -- but I think it is a > >> strategic** > >> ** > >> > >> advantage for civil society to always be calling for**** > >> > >> transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > >> are** > >> ** > >> > >> presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the**** > >> > >> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm**** > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown**** > >> > >> >> > >> >**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a**** > >> > >> statement to be released around this discussion, or later > in**** > >> > >> the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had**** > >> > >> the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help**** > >> > >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we > >> have** > >> ** > >> > >> enough time for significant participation from a diversity > >> of*** > >> * > >> > >> groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad**** > >> > >> to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net > >> > >> **** > >> > >> 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the > >> pad*** > >> * > >> > >> can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough,**** > >> > >> then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it**** > >> > >> earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> -- > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Senior Policy Officer > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Consumers International | the global**** > >> > >> campaigning voice for consumers* > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle**** > >> > >> East > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji**** > >> > >> Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! |**** > >> > >> Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main**** > >> > >> | #wcrd2013 > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org**** > >> > >> > >> < > http://www.consumersinternational.org/> > >> **** > >> > >> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** > >> > >> > >> < > http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >> < > http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> > >> .**** > >> > >> Don't print this email unless necessary. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> -- > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> You received this message because you are**** > >> > >> subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group"**** > >> > >> group. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop**** > >> > >> receiving emails from it, send an email to > >> webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com**** > >> > >> > >> unsubscribe at googlegroups.com> > >> . > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> For more options, visit > >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> -- > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Deborah Brown > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Policy Analyst > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> Access | AccessNow.org > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > >> > >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> @deblebrown > >> > >> **** > >> > >> >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > Joana Varon Ferraz > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >> > >> **** > >> > >> > @joana_varon > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > >> > >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH > >> /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k > >> l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W > >> bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 > >> rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR > >> G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= > >> =/bjR > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> -- **** > >> > >> Dr Marianne Franklin**** > >> > >> Reader **** > >> > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program**** > >> > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)**** > >> > >> Goldsmiths, University of London**** > >> > >> Dept. of Media & Communications**** > >> > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW**** > >> > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072**** > >> > >> **** > >> > >> @GloComm**** > >> > >> https://twitter.com/GloComm**** > >> > >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/**** > >> > >> > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/**** > >> > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org**** > >> > >> @netrights**** > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IRP mailing list > >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > > @joana_varon > > > > > -- > tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org > tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum > elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport > www.facebook.com/szoljbele > alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu > alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu > egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum > www.youthforum.org > -- > SZABADOS Viktor > vikszabados at gmail.com > +36 30 8535388 > Budapest, HU > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 10:10:55 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:10:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, the statement is at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. The link you sent was to an older statement for WTPF. Asociacioon Colombiana de usuarios de Internet is number 14 on the signatory list. Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de > usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned > because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Can you please check? Thanks. gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. Can >> you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >> next 15 minutes or so? >> >> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >> pressed environment. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>> >>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to understand >>> the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes were against >>> the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference between the >>> two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these organisations are >>> welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG issues. and also >>> especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet resolution' of the >>> WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>> please, do so: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>> >>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>> >>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>> >>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>>>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>>>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>> >>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>>>> email, please do so on the site too. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 10:11:08 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:11:08 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Ginger 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque > Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de > usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned > because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Can you please check? Thanks. gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. Can >> you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >> next 15 minutes or so? >> >> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >> pressed environment. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>> >>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to understand >>> the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes were against >>> the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference between the >>> two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these organisations are >>> welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG issues. and also >>> especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet resolution' of the >>> WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>> please, do so: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>> >>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>> >>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>> >>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>>>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>>>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>> >>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>>>> email, please do so on the site too. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 10:58:43 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:58:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email you should have received, for it to appear on the website. Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ginger > > > > 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque > >> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >> >> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >> ** >> ** >> >> >> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. Can >>> you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>> >>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>> next 15 minutes or so? >>> >>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>> pressed environment. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>> >>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>> please, do so: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>> >>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>> >>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>> >>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>>>>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>>>>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>> >>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>>>>> email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>>> >>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 10 11:06:54 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:06:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks, Deborah. I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) cheers joana On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and > asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the > session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it > with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. > > Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of > the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email > you should have received, for it to appear on the website. > > Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < > amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Ginger >> >> >> >> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque >> >>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>> >>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>> >>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>> ** >>> ** >>> >>> >>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. >>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>> >>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>>> next 15 minutes or so? >>>> >>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>>> pressed environment. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>>> >>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>>> please, do so: >>>>> >>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>> >>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> >>>>> Joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, >>>>>>> *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though >>>>>>> leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>>>>>> email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 10 12:39:08 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:39:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: <8A907C46-551F-48A3-8A17-965E97507315@uzh.ch> +1 I recirculated it to NCUC members as well… Best Bill On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Anriette and all, > > Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of time. This was amazing! > Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > Please, let's spread it! > best > joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > > Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > > Dear all > > > > +1 from me. > > > > MF > > > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >> I support this text by Joy... > >> > >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>> > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > > > Joy > > > > > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > > Joana Varon wrote: > > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All > > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > >> > > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > > facilitating input and sign on. > > >> > > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > > get this finalized. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > >> > > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > >> > > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > >> > > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > > opinion and expression". [2] > > >> > > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > > subject to US jurisdiction. > > >> > > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > >> > > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > >> > > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > >> > > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > >> > > >> [1] > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > >> > > >> [2] > > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > >> > > >> ENDS > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > > of convincing arguments/facts. > > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > > wrote: > > > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > >>> Senior Policy Officer > > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > > consumers* > > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > > > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > > | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > > print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>> For more options, visit > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Deborah Brown > > >> Policy Analyst > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > > >> @deblebrown > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -- > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > @joana_varon > > > >>> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > > ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 5 21:28:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:28:40 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] c.a.'s speech at 16th CSTD opening ceremony Message-ID: <51AFE5C8.8090709@cafonso.ca> Hi people, I was invited by CSTD to participate in the opening ceremony of its 16th Session on June 03. Below is what I said. fraternal regards --c.a. ==================== Commision on Science and Technology for Development, Sixteenth session, Geneva, 3-7 June 2013 Opening Session Speech by Carlos Afonso, Executive Director, Nupef Institute, Brazil ======================================= Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD; Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the ITU, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this Sixteenth Session of the UN CSTD as a member of a small civil society organization, committed to proactively contribute to the advance of ICTs for human development in my country. I am also one of the founding members of a relevant pluralist initiative in Internet governance in Brazil, created in 1995, when this concept was not yet in our minds, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee -- a joint initiative of government, academia, industry and NGOs. More than just a names and numbers assignment organization for Brazil's ".br" top domain name, the Steering Committee has the mission to oversee or advise on a broad range of issues related to the development and deployment of the Internet in our country. Since 2003, when a multistakeholder model of coordination was consolidated, a majority of its 21 members is elected every three years by civil society, the private sector, and the technical community. Our Steering Committee has been a reference for several countries in organizing multistakeholder processes of Internet governance. In 2009 the Steering Committee managed to reach consensus around its 10 Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil. Its publication has since been used as a reference in many foruns around the world, and was the starting point of a challenging proposal: a new bill of law setting a Framework of Civil Rights for the Internet in Brazil, known in Portuguese as the "Marco Civil da Internet". Marco Civil was elaborated during a long, 3-year process of open, highly participatory consultations with all sectors, until a final version of the bill of law was submitted to Congress last year. We are now struggling to preserve the essential tenets of Marco Civil as it is processed through Congress, against the heavy lobby of the telecommunications industry (which strongly opposes net neutrality) and the main media companies (which insist on facilities for takedown of content without due process of law, as well as imposing undue accountability on intermediaries). In short, these are more or less the same disputes we see in most countries, including the largest developed democracies. A strong indication of these and other challenges to a free and open Internet was the recent appeal, four days ago, of Neelie Kroes, the Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, which, along with the defense of an European single market for telecommunications, stresses the fundamental importance of guaranteeing net neutrality, among other fundamental rights. As the ITU-Unesco broadband commission stated in its 2012 report, "to date, the rapid, substantial growth in broadband has not translated into significant increases in Internet access in least developed countries (LDCs), where only 6 per cent of inhabitants had access as of 2011. This [percentage] is expected to more than double by 2015, but by then, the absolute gap with higher income countries is likely to grow even larger." And Susan Crawford makes a very strong case for the universalization of bidirectional high-speed broadband (for both upload and download) in every home and office, in her recent book "Captive Audience." True bidirectional high-speed, this is true broadband, with the guarantee of net neutrality and protection of other basic human rights for the end user. As I said in the opening ceremony at the IGF in Baku, the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to carry out the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We ought to preserve and enhance fundamental communication rights as synthesized in the Final Statement of the First WSIS+10 Review event held last February at Unesco Headquarters in Paris. As the Brazilian experience in pluralist governance exemplifies, any upcoming institutional arrangement for the governance of the Internet should never be restricted to just multilateral structures -- we may need new governance mechanisms, but these must emphasize full participation of all sectors from policy conception to decision-making. Let us hope that the current CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation sheds a brilliant light on the path to the proper ways of effective international collaboration. Let the Internet continue to flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Kabob mailing list Kabob at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/kabob From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 10 13:11:37 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:11:37 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B608C9.1040208@apc.org> Dear all Just following up on Anja's suggestion about writing to Dunja. I think it is a great idea Anja.. why don't you send her the final statement, and ask her for other suggestions on how we can have our HRC demands met.. e.g. perhaps we can ask for a report on practices and laws in place on surveillance among European states.. or is that already available? Anriette On 10/06/2013 11:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > The Internet Democracy Project will be signing this as well. > > Parminder, could you explain why you felt company names should be removed? > Just wondering. > > Also, if we are contacting Catalina, would it be worthwhile to write to > Dunja as well? I'd be happy to do so. Is it an endorsement we want from > them, or something else? > > Just a last minute edit to propose - in the following two paras I have > moved the sentence that starts with "although the personal information > disclosed under this programme..." to the end, as I felt this made a > stronger argument. The reason I propose to do so is because its current > location immediately made me wonder about sovereignty issues and the extent > to which states have the obligations to protect the rights of non-citizens > and non-residents. By moving the sentence we have a greater chance of > pre-empting such questions: > > "Affirmation of Internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross > regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. > But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this > statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious > revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. The > introductionof surveillance mechanisms into > the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service > providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital > communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La > Rue notes: * "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability > of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, > challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek > remedies." *Although the personal information disclosed under this > programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no > responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US > jurisdiction. [delete: An immediate response is...] > > Would people be ok with this change? > > Finally, I didn't understand why some of the suggestions regarding possible > actions had been taken out of the main text. Could someone maybe clarify? > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > On 10 June 2013 14:17, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> And thanks for the comprehension. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have >>> liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. >>> Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been >>> mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>> >>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not >>> Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on >>> this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. >>> Wonder if Joy is still there? >>> >>> Best, parminder >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights >>> Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The >>> draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based >>> orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we >>> can still publish it and do outreach. >>> >>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread >>> in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to >>> facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals >>> feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we >>> can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this >>> statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at >>> 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame >>> we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >>> >>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and >>> apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. >>> Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>> >>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of >>> State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >>> >>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from >>> ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express >>> strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and >>> telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of >>> the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access >>> to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United >>> Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the >>> globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are >>> universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may >>> even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil >>> and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the >>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> >>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which >>> "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be >>> protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during >>> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported >>> (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications >>> with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy >>> and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that >>> inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for >>> arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in >>> communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right >>> to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >>> >>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross >>> regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. >>> But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this >>> statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious >>> revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the >>> personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the >>> oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that >>> court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights >>> of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >>> >>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the >>> data streams of the globally central service providers storing and >>> communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a >>> backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This >>> raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of >>> human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they >>> might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect >>> to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>> >>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the >>> violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately >>> suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council >>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, >>> the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. >>> As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor >>> should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by >>> citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this >>> case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental >>> human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in >>> promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>> >>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically >>> relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert >>> Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the >>> Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global >>> Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would >>> be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to >>> support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >>> develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of >>> technological advancements >>> >>> [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>> >>> [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>> >>> ENDS >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >>> >>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching >>>> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: >>>> I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and >>>> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >>>> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >>>> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >>>> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >>>> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >>>> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >>>> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >>>> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >>>> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >>>> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >>>> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >>>> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >>>> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >>>> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >>>> coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>> >>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >>>> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >>>> pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll >>>> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >>>> the air until then. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>> >>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 13:13:50 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:13:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <8A907C46-551F-48A3-8A17-965E97507315@uzh.ch> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <8A907C46-551F-48A3-8A17-965E97507315@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Bill. A quick update here: - The intervention was made this afternoon at the HRC by APC and Reporters Without Borders (through HRW, who was physically present in Geneva and generously helped out). I've attached the shorter version that Therese from HRW actually delivered, but please note in any communication that officially it was APC and RSF that delivered the statement, not HRW. In the actual intervention, Therese noted that the statement was on behalf of over 30 organizations from all over the world, which was the count at the time of the intervention. - The longer version of the statement (the one that is posted on Best Bits) is posted on the HRC extranet here: https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/APC_32.pdf(username: hrc extranet/password: 1session) You should all have PDF of the final document that Anriette circulated a few hours ago. - For those wishing to see the webcast, it should be archived later today or tomorrow. It should be labeled something along the lines of "23rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council (27 May - 14 June 2013) 15h00-: General debate on item 8 – Vienna Declaration of Action" somewhere on this page: http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/23rd-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-27-may-14-june-2013/2178978643001/ - Tunisia delivered a cross-regional statement on behalf of a broad group of governments on the internet and human rights. The core group organizing this statement was led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and USA. The statement is good, but does not reflect the recent developments on State surveillance at all. Perhaps we can use the statement in further advocacy. Here's the cross regional statement https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/Tunisia_32.pdf(same password as before) and I've also drafted it in drop box: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j3fj55tyt6fvout/HRCcrossregionalstatementonInternet%26HR.pdf I think that's all for now. Looking forward to continuing this dialogue on surveillance on the Internet and next steps. Warm regards, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 > > I recirculated it to NCUC members as well… > > Best > > Bill > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Anriette and all, > > Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of > time. This was amazing! > Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > Please, let's spread it! > best > joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >> names. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> > Dear all >> > >> > +1 from me. >> > >> > MF >> > >> > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> >> I support this text by Joy... >> >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >>> >> > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> > >> > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >> > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> > >> > Joy >> > >> > >> > >> > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> > Joana Varon wrote: >> > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> > > And thanks for the comprehension. >> > >> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi All >> > >> > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> > >> > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> > >> > > Best, parminder >> > >> > >> > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > >> Dear all, >> > >> >> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >> > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> > >> >> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >> > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> > facilitating input and sign on. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> > get this finalized. >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> Deborah >> > >> >> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> > >> >> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> case >> > >> >> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >> > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >> > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> > >> >> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >> > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> > opinion and expression". [2] >> > >> >> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >> > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> > subject to US jurisdiction. >> > >> >> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> > >> >> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> > A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> > >> >> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> > >> >> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >> > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> >> > >> [2] >> > >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> > >> >> > >> ENDS >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >> > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >> > of convincing arguments/facts. >> > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> > > wrote: >> > >> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >> > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> > >> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> > >> > >>> -- >> > >> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> > >>> Senior Policy Officer >> > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> > consumers* >> > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> > >> > >> > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> > >> > >> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> > | >> > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> > >> > >> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> > . Don't >> > print this email unless necessary. >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -- >> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> > . >> > >>> For more options, visit >> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Deborah Brown >> > >> Policy Analyst >> > >> Access | AccessNow.org >> > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> > >> @deblebrown >> > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > Joana Varon Ferraz >> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> > > @joana_varon >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > -- > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FOR THERESE_Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final_updated.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57652 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 10 13:17:10 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:17:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <4A21114E-2F3C-421A-8743-FF2A5C2FC0BB@webfoundation.org> References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> ,<4A21114E-2F3C-421A-8743-FF2A5C2FC0BB@webfoundation.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2233B0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Anne, I've added Internet Rights and Principles to the list; since - then you're talking to lawyers of the type you are looking for, fast; known to do endless hours of pro bono things too : ) Who has time right now is question, for others to answer for themselves. Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Anne Jellema [anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:02 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: katitza at eff.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; webwewant at googlegroups.com; Rainey Reitman; Jillian York; Danny O'Brien Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Does anyone have access to international human rights lawyer for fast pro bono advice on non-US implications & remedies? I can try some contacts tmw... Anne Jellema CEO World Wide Web Foundation www.webfoundation.org Mob +27 61 0369352 On 09 Jun 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anne Jellema > wrote: We'd like to help, Jeremy. Best Anne Anne Jellema CEO World Wide Web Foundation www.webfoundation.org Mob +27 61 0369352 On 09 Jun 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Jun 10 15:11:47 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:11:47 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130610191147.GH812@tarvainen.info> +1 -- Tapani Tarvainen On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:26:03PM +1200, joy (joy at apc.org) wrote: > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation > of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a > new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological > advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report > a) formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on > survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet > human rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in > in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding > Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and > Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would > not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have > not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk > to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council > meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights > Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The > draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based > orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not > we can still publish it and do outreach. > >> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this > thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site > to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or > individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this > thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a > reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will > take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was > the best time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and > sign on. > >> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and > apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > get this finalized. > >> > >> Best, > >> Deborah > >> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > >> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil > and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special > Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks > "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the > right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the > protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] > >> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the > cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is > important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments > supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, > the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA > case. Although the personal information disclosed under this programme > is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for > ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > >> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is > a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: > "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial > commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals > to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge > decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An > immediate response is needed. > >> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency > and upholding the human rights of all. > >> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the > Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a > multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue > that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the > right to privacy in light of technological advancements > >> > >> [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >> > >> [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >> > >> ENDS > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does > NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details to > explain their stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting > can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show how > our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with long-term > diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will continue and many > of the facts will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a > strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for > transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are > presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of > convincing arguments/facts. > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends > this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If > not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is > whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >>> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If > 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on > how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>> Senior Policy Officer > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > consumers* > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>> > >>> > >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >>> > >>> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > >>> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > >>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Deborah Brown > >> Policy Analyst > >> Access | AccessNow.org > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >> @deblebrown > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > @joana_varon From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 10 20:26:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:26:13 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 10/06/2013, at 10:04 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > > Can you please check? Thanks. gp I will go through both of the last two statements and approve the signatories that appear to be legit but who haven't confirmed their endorsements by email. Apologies for not being responsive enough about this over the last few days due to my travel. Check in a couple of ours and the missing endorsements should be visible. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 11 02:24:36 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:24:36 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Signatures on BestBits site, was Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> Dear Jeremy Firstly, thanks for doing a really great site and makes signing on so easy. Also thanks to you and others who have been part of BestBits for getting us to a place of much more constructive collaboration than some of our other spaces enable. On the signature page.. would it be possible to list organisations separately from individuals, and, in the case of individuals, would it be possible to also list country? Yesterday to compile the number of organisations who signed the PRISM statement I had cut and paste manually. Not a big deal, but it struck me that it would be useful to have two separate listings. But overall.. really great work, from Jeremy and from everyone else who initiates and participate in the process of discussing and drafting inputs, often under severe time pressure. Anriette On 11/06/2013 02:26, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/06/2013, at 10:04 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >> >> Can you please check? Thanks. gp > I will go through both of the last two statements and approve the signatories that appear to be legit but who haven't confirmed their endorsements by email. Apologies for not being responsive enough about this over the last few days due to my travel. Check in a couple of ours and the missing endorsements should be visible. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 11 02:36:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:36:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Signatures on BestBits site, was Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B6C558.10101@ciroap.org> On 11/06/13 14:24, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Firstly, thanks for doing a really great site and makes signing on so > easy. Also thanks to you and others who have been part of BestBits for > getting us to a place of much more constructive collaboration than some > of our other spaces enable. > > On the signature page.. would it be possible to list organisations > separately from individuals, and, in the case of individuals, would it > be possible to also list country? As to the organisations and individuals, you are not the first person to ask for that (not even the first today!) but it is beyond my technical capacity, so I am outsourcing that to a programmer. There will be a cost, which I'll cover, it won't be much. As to the country, normally we do include a country field but this time in my haste I forgot - sorry. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Tue Jun 11 02:39:03 2013 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:39:03 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] Signatures on BestBits site, was Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> Message-ID: We signed as the Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) , and not still appeared on the list. *Bazlu* ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR* **| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Jun 11 02:52:06 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:52:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Signatures on BestBits site, was Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B6C916.1040406@gold.ac.uk> Dear all Yes, great work Jeremy and all to get this out so effectively and promptly! Just one technical hitch still recurring are messages from the old list address to some messages sent and not others. This may be affecting other people contributing and receiving a message to resend to the new address. All the best MF On 11/06/2013 07:24, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Jeremy > > Firstly, thanks for doing a really great site and makes signing on so > easy. Also thanks to you and others who have been part of BestBits for > getting us to a place of much more constructive collaboration than some > of our other spaces enable. > > On the signature page.. would it be possible to list organisations > separately from individuals, and, in the case of individuals, would it > be possible to also list country? > > Yesterday to compile the number of organisations who signed the PRISM > statement I had cut and paste manually. Not a big deal, but it struck me > that it would be useful to have two separate listings. > > But overall.. really great work, from Jeremy and from everyone else who > initiates and participate in the process of discussing and drafting > inputs, often under severe time pressure. > > Anriette > > On 11/06/2013 02:26, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 10/06/2013, at 10:04 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is concerned because the signature no longer appears at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>> >>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >> I will go through both of the last two statements and approve the signatories that appear to be legit but who haven't confirmed their endorsements by email. Apologies for not being responsive enough about this over the last few days due to my travel. Check in a couple of ours and the missing endorsements should be visible. >> -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 04:25:56 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:25:56 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Signatures on BestBits site, was Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B6C2A4.9030300@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Bazlu, all After signing, you need to check the email that you put there, because a link has been sent to that email to confirm your endorsement. It is only after that confirmation that your endorsement is validated and will fianlly show up. Best regards Nnenna On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:39 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > We signed as the Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication > (BNNRC) , and not still appeared on the list. > > > *Bazlu* > ________________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR* **| *Chief Executive Officer *|* > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social > Council]* > > House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* > Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 > Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr > cbd at gmail.com *|* > www.bnnrc.net > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Jun 5 21:56:08 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:56:08 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] c.a.'s speech at 16th CSTD opening ceremony In-Reply-To: <51AFE5C8.8090709@cafonso.ca> References: <51AFE5C8.8090709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <957D381A-483E-4ABD-81B7-F971E18F9FA6@apnic.net> Very nice! Thanks and congratulations to you Carlos. Paul On 06/06/2013, at 11:28 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > I was invited by CSTD to participate in the opening ceremony of its 16th Session on June 03. Below is what I said. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ==================== > > Commision on Science and Technology for Development, > Sixteenth session, Geneva, 3-7 June 2013 > Opening Session > > Speech by Carlos Afonso, Executive Director, Nupef Institute, Brazil > > ======================================= > > Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD; Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the ITU, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this Sixteenth Session of the UN CSTD as a member of a small civil society organization, committed to proactively contribute to the advance of ICTs for human development in my country. > > I am also one of the founding members of a relevant pluralist initiative in Internet governance in Brazil, created in 1995, when this concept was not yet in our minds, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee -- a joint initiative of government, academia, industry and NGOs. More than just a names and numbers assignment organization for Brazil's ".br" top domain name, the Steering Committee has the mission to oversee or advise on a broad range of issues related to the development and deployment of the Internet in our country. > > Since 2003, when a multistakeholder model of coordination was consolidated, a majority of its 21 members is elected every three years by civil society, the private sector, and the technical community. Our Steering Committee has been a reference for several countries in organizing multistakeholder processes of Internet governance. > > In 2009 the Steering Committee managed to reach consensus around its 10 Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil. Its publication has since been used as a reference in many foruns around the world, and was the starting point of a challenging proposal: a new bill of law setting a Framework of Civil Rights for the Internet in Brazil, known in Portuguese as the "Marco Civil da Internet". Marco Civil was elaborated during a long, 3-year process of open, highly participatory consultations with all sectors, until a final version of the bill of law was submitted to Congress last year. > > We are now struggling to preserve the essential tenets of Marco Civil as it is processed through Congress, against the heavy lobby of the telecommunications industry (which strongly opposes net neutrality) and the main media companies (which insist on facilities for takedown of content without due process of law, as well as imposing undue accountability on intermediaries). > > In short, these are more or less the same disputes we see in most countries, including the largest developed democracies. A strong indication of these and other challenges to a free and open Internet was the recent appeal, four days ago, of Neelie Kroes, the Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, which, along with the defense of an European single market for telecommunications, stresses the fundamental importance of guaranteeing net neutrality, among other fundamental rights. > > As the ITU-Unesco broadband commission stated in its 2012 report, "to date, the rapid, substantial growth in broadband has not translated into significant increases in Internet access in least developed countries (LDCs), where only 6 per cent of inhabitants had access as of 2011. This [percentage] is expected to more than double by 2015, but by then, the absolute gap with higher income countries is likely to grow even larger." And Susan Crawford makes a very strong case for the universalization of bidirectional high-speed broadband (for both upload and download) in every home and office, in her recent book "Captive Audience." > > True bidirectional high-speed, this is true broadband, with the guarantee of net neutrality and protection of other basic human rights for the end user. > > As I said in the opening ceremony at the IGF in Baku, the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to carry out the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > To impose restrictions to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We ought to preserve and enhance fundamental communication rights as synthesized in the Final Statement of the First WSIS+10 Review event held last February at Unesco Headquarters in Paris. > > As the Brazilian experience in pluralist governance exemplifies, any upcoming institutional arrangement for the governance of the Internet should never be restricted to just multilateral structures -- we may need new governance mechanisms, but these must emphasize full participation of all sectors from policy conception to decision-making. Let us hope that the current CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation sheds a brilliant light on the path to the proper ways of effective international collaboration. > > Let the Internet continue to flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > Kabob mailing list > Kabob at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/kabob > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2880 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 11 04:52:49 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:52:49 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Welcome to new Best Bits participants Message-ID: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> Thanks to the new participants who have joined the Best Bits list recently, some due to the joint statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa (which now has 114 endorsements). I'm also one-time cc'ing the other lists that were cross-posted during that work (and bcc'ing the personal addresses). I won't take up much of your time, but thought a few paragraphs of introduction to Best Bits would be in order for the new or curious. Best Bits is a network of civil society groups who work individually - and sometimes together - on issues that are variously described as "Internet governance", "Internet freedom" or "Internet rights/human rights", depending on your preferred framing. Best Bits is a loose unifying framework for that work that brings together groups from global North and South. There are three main resources that Best Bits provides: the mailing list, face to face strategy meetings (including at least an annual meeting alongside the IGF), and the website which is used for joint statements and a shared event calendar (under construction, but largely functional already). There is currently no organisational structure for Best Bits, though we are intending to put together a loose and balanced steering group any time now. There is not even a formal membership, though if you are a Best Bits participant and wish to list your civil society organisation as a supporter, your logo can be added to our website at http://bestbits.net. I hope this helps but for any other questions, please ask away. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 05:25:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:55:59 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 June 2013 03:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > > Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. Did not understand. Why on APC's behalf and not all those who worked to develop it and signed it... I think I may be missing something here. parminder > We have included > signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> Dear all >> >> +1 from me. >> >> MF >> >> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>> I support this text by Joy... >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> >> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> Joy >> >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> Joana Varon wrote: >>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> And thanks for the comprehension. >> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> >>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> >>> Best, parminder >> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> facilitating input and sign on. >>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> get this finalized. >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>> >>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> opinion and expression". [2] >>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>> ENDS >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> > wrote: >>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> > wrote: >> >>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >>>>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 11 05:53:43 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:53:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Just to clear thing out, maybe you've missed this explanation that Deborah sent right after Anriette's email that you've quoted: "Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on behalf of xx orgs from around the world." Then the updates, again from Deborah: "The intervention was made this afternoon at the HRC by APC and Reporters Without Borders (through HRW, who was physically present in Geneva and generously helped out). I've attached the shorter version that Therese from HRW actually delivered, but please note in any communication that officially it was APC and RSF that delivered the statement, not HRW. In the actual intervention, Therese noted that the statement was on behalf of over 30 organizations from all over the world, which was the count at the time of the intervention." I hope it helps. best joana On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 10 June 2013 03:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > > Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. > > > Did not understand. Why on APC's behalf and not all those who worked to > develop it and signed it... I think I may be missing something here. > parminder > > > We have included > signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > > Dear all > > +1 from me. > > MF > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > > I support this text by Joy... > > On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > And thanks for the comprehension. > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > Hi All > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > Best, parminder > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations > > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > [1] > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] > > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > > wrote: > > I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > of convincing arguments/facts. > > On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > > wrote: > > > In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > > Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > > consumers* > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > > |www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . > > For more options, visit > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing listIRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.orghttp://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 11 06:00:28 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:00:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B6F53C.2070108@apc.org> Dear Parminder To make an oral statement in the HRC accredited NGOs have to book a speaking slot in advance. When you book a speaking slot you have to state the name of the person who will present the statement. You also have to upload the statement which is why the editing had to be done in such a rush early morning yesterday (Monday 10 June). The agenda item we requested to speak to (General Debate, Item 8) was scheduled to start at 15h00. If that person cannot be present you have to send a signed letter to the Office of the High Commissioner to state why the named person cannot read the statement and to request permission for them to allow someone else to read the statement on your behalf. Yesterday morning I booked a speaking lost as APC in my own name. That was the only way of doing it as the other organisations we had approached had already booked their own speaking slots and could not book another for that agenda item. Human Rights Watch (Philippe) graciously said that their intern could read the statement on our behalf. I then had to write a signed formal letter on APC letterhead to state that I could not be present but that we authorise the HRW intern to read the statement. She had to go to the OHCHR to present herself with a copy of the proxy letter and the statement. We were added to roster and in the end when they gave us the floor the slot was announced as a statement from APC and from Reporters Without Borders as they (through the kind effort of Helene Sackstein) were happy to share a slot with us. Therefore the president of the HRC would have given the floor to APC and RSF/RWB. The text of the statement that was read started off saying that this statement is on behalf of more than 30 NGOs. With only 2 minutes it is understandbly not possible to read on whose behalf, and in any case, if they are not all accredited it might not be considered appropriate to name them in the first place. I hope that helps to clarify the process. Anriette On 11/06/2013 11:25, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 10 June 2013 03:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. > > Did not understand. Why on APC's behalf and not all those who worked > to develop it and signed it... I think I may be missing something > here. parminder From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 07:00:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:30:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B6F53C.2070108@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B6ED27.6090901@itforchange.net> <51B6F53C.2070108@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B70358.7060800@itforchange.net> Thanks Joana and Anriette... I get it now.. parminder On Tuesday 11 June 2013 03:30 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder > > To make an oral statement in the HRC accredited NGOs have to book a > speaking slot in advance. > > When you book a speaking slot you have to state the name of the person > who will present the statement. You also have to upload the statement > which is why the editing had to be done in such a rush early morning > yesterday (Monday 10 June). The agenda item we requested to speak to > (General Debate, Item 8) was scheduled to start at 15h00. > > If that person cannot be present you have to send a signed letter to the > Office of the High Commissioner to state why the named person cannot > read the statement and to request permission for them to allow someone > else to read the statement on your behalf. > > Yesterday morning I booked a speaking lost as APC in my own name. That > was the only way of doing it as the other organisations we had > approached had already booked their own speaking slots and could not > book another for that agenda item. > > Human Rights Watch (Philippe) graciously said that their intern could > read the statement on our behalf. I then had to write a signed formal > letter on APC letterhead to state that I could not be present but that > we authorise the HRW intern to read the statement. She had to go to the > OHCHR to present herself with a copy of the proxy letter and the statement. > > We were added to roster and in the end when they gave us the floor the > slot was announced as a statement from APC and from Reporters Without > Borders as they (through the kind effort of Helene Sackstein) were happy > to share a slot with us. > > Therefore the president of the HRC would have given the floor to APC and > RSF/RWB. > > The text of the statement that was read started off saying that this > statement is on behalf of more than 30 NGOs. With only 2 minutes it is > understandbly not possible to read on whose behalf, and in any case, if > they are not all accredited it might not be considered appropriate to > name them in the first place. > > I hope that helps to clarify the process. > > Anriette > > > On 11/06/2013 11:25, parminder wrote: >> On Monday 10 June 2013 03:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. >> Did not understand. Why on APC's behalf and not all those who worked >> to develop it and signed it... I think I may be missing something >> here. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yjpark21 at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:06:11 2013 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (Youn Jung Park) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:06:11 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Welcome to new Best Bits participants In-Reply-To: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> References: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy and all, Thank you for your initiating this. I recently joined BB list expecting more "actions" rather than discussion. I have been engaged with "critical Internet resource" related Internet governance issues since the beginning of ICANN under different settings including WSIS,IGF. I have followed up "big data or cloud data governance" dialogues and learned they do have global governance challenges including privacy/security issues like PRISM. Lastly, glad to see many familiar names pop up in this list. I used to put my name YJ Park and still use the name in the global setting. Now I am back in S.Korea where people prefer full name. I present my name as Youn Jung Park in the header but I will still use YJ in my mails. I do not represent any civil society group here but myself as individual. I work at Department of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea. (www.sunykorea.ac.kr) Look forward to working with you down this road. YJ On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Thanks to the new participants who have joined the Best Bits list > recently, some due to the joint statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa(which now has 114 endorsements). I'm also one-time cc'ing the other lists > that were cross-posted during that work (and bcc'ing the personal > addresses). > > I won't take up much of your time, but thought a few paragraphs of > introduction to Best Bits would be in order for the new or curious. > > Best Bits is a network of civil society groups who work individually - and > sometimes together - on issues that are variously described as "Internet > governance", "Internet freedom" or "Internet rights/human rights", > depending on your preferred framing. Best Bits is a loose unifying > framework for that work that brings together groups from global North and > South. > > There are three main resources that Best Bits provides: the mailing list, > face to face strategy meetings (including at least an annual meeting > alongside the IGF), and the website which is used for joint statements and > a shared event calendar (under construction, but largely functional > already). > > There is currently no organisational structure for Best Bits, though we > are intending to put together a loose and balanced steering group any time > now. There is not even a formal membership, though if you are a Best Bits > participant and wish to list your civil society organisation as a > supporter, your logo can be added to our website at http://bestbits.net. > > I hope this helps but for any other questions, please ask away. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jun 11 08:30:56 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:30:56 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Welcome to new Best Bits participants In-Reply-To: References: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51B71880.5050804@cafonso.ca> Great to have you here, YJ! [] fraterno --c.a. On 06/11/2013 09:06 AM, Youn Jung Park wrote: > Dear Jeremy and all, > > Thank you for your initiating this. I recently joined BB > list expecting more "actions" rather than discussion. I have been engaged > with "critical Internet resource" related Internet governance issues since > the beginning of ICANN under different settings including WSIS,IGF. I have > followed up "big data or cloud data governance" dialogues and learned they > do have global governance challenges including privacy/security issues like > PRISM. > > Lastly, glad to see many familiar names pop up in this list. I used to put > my name YJ Park and still use the name in the global setting. Now I am back > in S.Korea where people prefer full name. I present my name as Youn Jung > Park in the header but I will still use YJ in my mails. I do not represent > any civil society group here but myself as individual. I work at Department > of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea. (www.sunykorea.ac.kr) > > Look forward to working with you down this road. > YJ > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Thanks to the new participants who have joined the Best Bits list >> recently, some due to the joint statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa(which now has 114 endorsements). I'm also one-time cc'ing the other lists >> that were cross-posted during that work (and bcc'ing the personal >> addresses). >> >> I won't take up much of your time, but thought a few paragraphs of >> introduction to Best Bits would be in order for the new or curious. >> >> Best Bits is a network of civil society groups who work individually - and >> sometimes together - on issues that are variously described as "Internet >> governance", "Internet freedom" or "Internet rights/human rights", >> depending on your preferred framing. Best Bits is a loose unifying >> framework for that work that brings together groups from global North and >> South. >> >> There are three main resources that Best Bits provides: the mailing list, >> face to face strategy meetings (including at least an annual meeting >> alongside the IGF), and the website which is used for joint statements and >> a shared event calendar (under construction, but largely functional >> already). >> >> There is currently no organisational structure for Best Bits, though we >> are intending to put together a loose and balanced steering group any time >> now. There is not even a formal membership, though if you are a Best Bits >> participant and wish to list your civil society organisation as a >> supporter, your logo can be added to our website at http://bestbits.net. >> >> I hope this helps but for any other questions, please ask away. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub >> | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Jun 11 14:29:24 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear all, The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. - convening a special session to examine this case - supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, - requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: - formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, - examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. Warm regards, Deborah On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > ++1 > This is excellent > Shaila > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen > *To:* Deborah Brown > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; " > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases > Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done > > Dear all > > Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it > is within the 2 minutes space we have. > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Thanks Joana! > > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make > interventions > > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We > have > > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for > the > > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session > 1500 > > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement > on > > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > > confirmation email and click the link. > > > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 > hours > > across many time zones. > > > > Best, > > Deborah > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> Dear Anriette and all, > >> > >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period > of > >> time. This was amazing! > >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: > http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > >> Please, let's spread it! > >> best > >> joana > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >> @joana_varon > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > anriette at apc.org>wrote: > >> > >>> Dear all > >>> > >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > >>> > >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further > >>> names. > >>> > >>> Best > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> +1 from me. > >>>> > >>>> MF > >>>> > >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >>>>> I support this text by Joy... > >>>>> > >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > >>>> > >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>> > >>>> Joy > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > >>>> Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi All > >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > >>>> > >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > >>>> > >>>>> Best, parminder > >>>> > >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > >>>> facilitating input and sign on. > >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > >>>> get this finalized. > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Deborah > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA > >>> case > >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > >>>> opinion and expression". [2] > >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. > >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological > advancements > >>>>>> [1] > >>> > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >>>>>> [2] > >>> > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >>>>>> ENDS > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. > >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >>>> > >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer > >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > >>>> consumers* > >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>>> > >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > >>>> | > >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >>>> . Don't > >>>> print this email unless necessary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > >>>> . > >>>>>>> For more options, visit > >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Deborah Brown > >>>>>> Policy Analyst > >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org > >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >>>>>> @deblebrown > >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>>> @joana_varon > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>> www.apc.org > >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>> south africa > >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> IRP mailing list > >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 11 16:43:08 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:43:08 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51B78BDC.40502@apc.org> Dear Deborah Count APC in. Keep in mind that the Geneva-based HR groups are not all on these lists.. but we can contact them once we know who else wants to be involved. Anriette On 11/06/2013 20:29, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three > requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested > in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests > forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and > those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all > are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to > governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice > on crafting the recommendations. > > - convening a special session to examine this case > - supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation > of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment > 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, > - requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > - formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on > surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human > rights standards, and, > - examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and > Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Warm regards, > Deborah > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > >> ++1 >> This is excellent >> Shaila >> >> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* >> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> * >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen >> *To:* Deborah Brown >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; " >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases >> Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >> >> Dear all >> >> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> Thanks Joana! >>> Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >>> APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make >> interventions >>> and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We >> have >>> asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for >> the >>> current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session >> 1500 >>> Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement >> on >>> behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >>> the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> >>> I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >>> confirmation email and click the link. >>> >>> Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >>> >>> Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 >> hours >>> across many time zones. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >>>> Dear Anriette and all, >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period >> of >>>> time. This was amazing! >>>> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>>> Please, let's spread it! >>>> best >>>> joana >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >> anriette at apc.org>wrote: >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>>>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>>>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>>>> names. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me. >>>>>> >>>>>> MF >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>>>> >>>>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All >>>>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, parminder >>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>>>> get this finalized. >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Deborah >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>>>> case >>>>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological >> advancements >>>>>>>> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>>>> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>>>> ENDS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>>>> consumers* >>>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>>> | >>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>>> . Don't >>>>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> IRP mailing list >>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 16:50:29 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:50:29 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B78BDC.40502@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51B78BDC.40502@apc.org> Message-ID: Happy to work on the international law side of things. Perhaps we can gather ideas at the Flash Session during EuroDIG ... Kind regards Matthias On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Deborah > > Count APC in. Keep in mind that the Geneva-based HR groups are not all > on these lists.. but we can contact them once we know who else wants to > be involved. > > Anriette > > On 11/06/2013 20:29, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three > > requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested > > in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these > requests > > forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and > > those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all > > are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to > > governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some > advice > > on crafting the recommendations. > > > > - convening a special session to examine this case > > - supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the > recommendation > > of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > Comment > > 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, > and, > > - requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > > - formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on > > surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet > human > > rights standards, and, > > - examines the implications of this case in in the light of the > Human > > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on > Business and > > Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > > > Warm regards, > > Deborah > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: > > > >> ++1 > >> This is excellent > >> Shaila > >> > >> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > >> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > >> * > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen > >> *To:* Deborah Brown > >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; " > >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < > >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> > >> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM > >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases > >> Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it > >> is within the 2 minutes space we have. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>> Thanks Joana! > >>> Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf > of > >>> APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make > >> interventions > >>> and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We > >> have > >>> asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for > >> the > >>> current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session > >> 1500 > >>> Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the > statement > >> on > >>> behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you > endorse > >>> the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > >>> > >>> I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > >>> confirmation email and click the link. > >>> > >>> Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > >>> > >>> Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 > >> hours > >>> across many time zones. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Deborah > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon > >> wrote: > >>>> Dear Anriette and all, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short > period > >> of > >>>> time. This was amazing! > >>>> Here is the link for the next endorsements: > >> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > >>>> Please, let's spread it! > >>>> best > >>>> joana > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >> anriette at apc.org>wrote: > >>>>> Dear all > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > >>>>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > >>>>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further > >>>>> names. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best > >>>>> > >>>>> Anriette > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > >>>>>> Dear all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 from me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> MF > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >>>>>>> I support this text by Joy... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>>>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > >>>>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > >>>>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > >>>>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > >>>>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > >>>>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting > the > >>>>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop > of > >>>>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > >>>>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner > to > >>>>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices > and > >>>>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > >>>>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > >>>>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights > Council > >>>>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > >>>>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > >>>>>> Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > >>>>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > >>>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi All > >>>>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > >>>>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > >>>>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > >>>>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do > it?.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > >>>>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > >>>>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the > HR > >>>>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, parminder > >>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > >>>>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > >>>>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out > to > >>>>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > >>>>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > >>>>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > >>>>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > >>>>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if > organizations > >>>>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply > on > >>>>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > >>>>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at > the > >>>>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > >>>>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > >>>>>> facilitating input and sign on. > >>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > >>>>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > >>>>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together > to > >>>>>> get this finalized. > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Deborah > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > >>>>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the > PRISM/NSA > >>>>> case > >>>>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > >>>>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a > truly > >>>>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > >>>>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and > non-US > >>>>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > >>>>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > >>>>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and > the > >>>>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally > dominant > >>>>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > >>>>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > >>>>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > >>>>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > >>>>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > >>>>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >>>>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > >>>>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must > also > >>>>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > >>>>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > >>>>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > >>>>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the > human > >>>>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > >>>>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > >>>>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > >>>>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > >>>>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom > of > >>>>>> opinion and expression". [2] > >>>>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > >>>>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the > Internet > >>>>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > >>>>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in > fact > >>>>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > >>>>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > >>>>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > >>>>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret > and > >>>>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > >>>>>> subject to US jurisdiction. > >>>>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > >>>>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers > storing > >>>>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > >>>>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > >>>>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > >>>>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > >>>>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to > foreign > >>>>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > >>>>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > >>>>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > >>>>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally > to > >>>>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the > Human > >>>>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on > Business > >>>>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > >>>>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >>>>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > >>>>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > >>>>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight > of > >>>>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > >>>>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > >>>>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > >>>>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > >>>>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > >>>>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > >>>>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > >>>>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the > Internet. > >>>>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > >>>>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > >>>>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > >>>>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the > recommendation > >>>>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > >>>>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological > >> advancements > >>>>>>>> [1] > >> > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >>>>>>>> [2] > >> > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >>>>>>>> ENDS > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > >>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > >>>>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > >>>>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > >>>>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > >>>>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > >>>>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > >>>>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > >>>>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do > with > >>>>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > >>>>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > >>>>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always > be > >>>>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what > facts > >>>>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the > presentation > >>>>>> of convincing arguments/facts. > >>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > >>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > >>>>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > >>>>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an > outline? > >>>>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main > concern > >>>>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > >>>>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > >>>>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > >>>>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > >>>>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > >>>>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer > >>>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > >>>>>> consumers* > >>>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > >>>>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > >>>>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >>>>>> . > Don't > >>>>>> print this email unless necessary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > >>>>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > >>>>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > >>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Deborah Brown > >>>>>>>> Policy Analyst > >>>>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org > >>>>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >>>>>>>> @deblebrown > >>>>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>> -- > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>> south africa > >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> IRP mailing list > >>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>> > >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >> executive director, association for progressive communications > >> www.apc.org > >> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >> south africa > >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IRP mailing list > >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- Univ. Ass. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Jüngste Veröffentlichungen: The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013), Grenzen im Völkerrecht (2013, Hrsg) -- Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) , Grenzen im Völkerrecht (2013, ed.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jun 5 23:49:16 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:49:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E0933E6-75AD-4D5E-BBCF-1A040C2ED2D6@accessnow.org> Dear all, This is a gentle reminder that 6 June is the last day for editing the draft statement. Many thanks to those of you who have already made edits. Per the schedule below, Joana or I will aim to send out the final text for sign on on 7 June. Best regards, Deborah On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:00 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Good morning. > > As we have mentioned in the previous thread at best bits list on IGF and the Brazilian proposal on the role of States at WTPF, last Friday Deborah and I started a draft statement on a proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues. Please, find the link bellow: > > https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing > > We have followed the structure proposed by Nnenna and have tried to address comments made in the tread. But this is just a first draft, please, feel free to add your comments, edits, ideas and so on. Everybody is more then welcome to edit the text and we particularly need more inputs on the final part of it, about suggestions for recommendations on how to maximize meaningful civil society participation. > > Also, adapting Deborah's first proposal of timeline, we believe we should comply with the following dates, so we can deliver it to the ITU by the beginning of ITU Council 2013: > - Preliminary draft text open for edits: 2 May- 6 June > - Finalize text for sign on: 7 June > - Send text to the SG/ITU and publish it: June 11 (beginning of ITU Council 2013) > > We hope it suits you all. > > Have a lovely beginning of the week. > > All the best, > > Joana > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 11 17:40:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:40:21 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130611234021.7d12e312@quill.bollow.ch> Deborah Brown wrote: > In particular it would be good to have > Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC > involved, but of course all are welcome. I'd appreciate if I could be kept Cc'd please. I'm not right now able to make any significant time commitments, and I'm also not directly based in Geneva, but close enough that day trips to Geneva are feasible and affordable. Greetings, Norbert (in CH-8624 Grüt, in the Zurich Highlands area of Switzerland) From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 11 20:20:15 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:20:15 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <20130611234021.7d12e312@quill.bollow.ch> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20130611234021.7d12e312@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Very important to keep this going.. have some time constraints on Wed and Thursday though, but will try to do my best. Maybe the coordinated outreached to governments is the main priority, no? I've sent it to the Brazilian Government. Anriette has suggested a list of gov representatives at HRC. Is it feasible (considering we r not in Geneva)? On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Deborah Brown wrote: > > > In particular it would be good to have > > Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC > > involved, but of course all are welcome. > > I'd appreciate if I could be kept Cc'd please. I'm not right now able > to make any significant time commitments, and I'm also not directly > based in Geneva, but close enough that day trips to Geneva are feasible > and affordable. > > Greetings, > Norbert > (in CH-8624 Grüt, in the Zurich Highlands area of Switzerland) > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 05:55:49 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:55:49 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Welcome to new Best Bits participants In-Reply-To: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> References: <51B6E561.1000103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you for the revival message about Best Bits. From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 20:34:58 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:34:58 +1200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is within nations, behind closed doors. The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools available. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. > convening a special session to examine this case > supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, > requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, > examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > Warm regards, > Deborah > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> ++1 >> This is excellent >> Shaila >> >> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >> ..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> To: Deborah Brown >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" >> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >> >> Dear all >> >> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > Thanks Joana! >> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions >> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have >> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the >> > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 >> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on >> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> > >> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >> > confirmation email and click the link. >> > >> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >> > >> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours >> > across many time zones. >> > >> > Best, >> > Deborah >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> >> time. This was amazing! >> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> >> Please, let's spread it! >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear all >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >>> >> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >> >>> names. >> >>> >> >>> Best >> >>> >> >>> Anriette >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> >>>> Dear all >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 from me. >> >>>> >> >>>> MF >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> >>>> >> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>> >> >>>> Joy >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi All >> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> >>>> >> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> >>>> >> >>>>> Best, parminder >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> >>>> get this finalized. >> >>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>> Deborah >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> >>> case >> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> >>>>>> [1] >> >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >>>>>> [2] >> >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >>>>>> ENDS >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> >>>> consumers* >> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> >>>> | >> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >>>> . Don't >> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> >>>> . >> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> >>>>>> @deblebrown >> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >>>>> @joana_varon >> >>> -- >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >>> www.apc.org >> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> >>> south africa >> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> IRP mailing list >> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 13:03:10 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> Message-ID: <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> ++1 This is excellent Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: Deborah Brown Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Dear all Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it is within the 2 minutes space we have. Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours > across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs.  We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> Joy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>    Hi All >>>>>    IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>> >>>>>    I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>>>    Best, parminder >>>> >>>>>    On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>>    Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>>    Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>>    Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>>    Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>> get this finalized. >>>>>>    Best, >>>>>>    Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>>    Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>>      Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>> case >>>>>>    Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>>    Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>>    Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>>    The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>> notes:  "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>>    We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>>    We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>>    This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>> Comment on  the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>>    [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>>    [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>>    ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>    On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> > wrote: >>>>>>        I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>> decide to put out:  I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>> does  NOT constitute  human rights violations, with specific details >>>> to explain their stance.  I believe all the language people are >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified.  This has more to do with >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>>        On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>        On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>        In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>>>>>        Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> hearing?  Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> >>>>>>>        -- >>>>>>>        *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>        Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>        Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>> consumers* >>>>>>>        Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>        Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>        Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>>>>>        WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>        @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>        Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . Don't >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>        -- >>>>>>>        You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>        To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>>>>>        For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>    -- >>>>>>    Deborah Brown >>>>>>    Policy Analyst >>>>>>    Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>>    E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>>    @deblebrown >>>>>>    PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 00:01:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:01:30 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter to the US government from international organisations. That letter would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you can point them towards this list too. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 00:37:05 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:37:05 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] List privacy Message-ID: <51B7FAF1.10309@ciroap.org> Someone has asked me to remind list members of the privacy settings of the list. Best Bits is a civil society coalition, but we do not limit who can join the mailing list. Therefore there are some lurkers/observers from governments and corporations, including (in both cases) those who are the subject of the current PRISM/NSA scandal. As a subscriber, your details are visible to other authenticated subscribers via the list website at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/review/bestbits. (That list setting has been debated in the past, but the consensus at the time was for openness.) If there is the desire for a parallel closed list, then there is no technical barrier to creating one. Most recently I had proposed that the "EC" sub-list, which is tasked with developing a proposal on enhanced cooperation for discussion at our next face-to-face meeting, be closed, but this was opposed by some, so it remains open too. If anyone has thoughts on the above, you can share them in this thread, or privately if you prefer. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Jun 12 02:02:45 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:02:45 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0000013f36faae0a-50add3c9-8d8d-4643-8741-fcbd0fac6985-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear Sala, This is certainly true - however, some expectation of transparency seems also reasonable to me. For example, the moves in the US on several fronts to make their existing process more transparent aren't a complete fix - or anything like it - but they would be a great improvement. If the entire Internet sector had transparency reports - which were compatible with one another so it would be possible to see like for like across services and countries - this would I think be very valuable. There will always be national security surveillance, I think we all know this. That doesn't mean that all government requests for these purposes need to be secret (and secret courts with gag orders on decisions seems particularly unjustifiable to me). Just a few thoughts. On 12 Jun 2013, at 02:34, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is within nations, behind closed doors. > > The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. > > Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools available. > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. >> convening a special session to examine this case >> supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, >> requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: >> formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, >> examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> Warm regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> ++1 >> This is excellent >> Shaila >> >> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >> ..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> To: Deborah Brown >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" >> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >> >> Dear all >> >> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > Thanks Joana! >> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions >> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have >> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the >> > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 >> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on >> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> > >> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >> > confirmation email and click the link. >> > >> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >> > >> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours >> > across many time zones. >> > >> > Best, >> > Deborah >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> >> time. This was amazing! >> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> >> Please, let's spread it! >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear all >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >>> >> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >> >>> names. >> >>> >> >>> Best >> >>> >> >>> Anriette >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> >>>> Dear all >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 from me. >> >>>> >> >>>> MF >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> >>>> >> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>> >> >>>> Joy >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi All >> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> >>>> >> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> >>>> >> >>>>> Best, parminder >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> >>>> get this finalized. >> >>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>> Deborah >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> >>> case >> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> >>>>>> [1] >> >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >>>>>> [2] >> >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >>>>>> ENDS >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> >>>> consumers* >> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> >>>> | >> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >>>> . Don't >> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> >>>> . >> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> >>>>>> @deblebrown >> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >>>>> @joana_varon >> >>> -- >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >>> www.apc.org >> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> >>> south africa >> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> IRP mailing list >> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From allon at allonbar.com Wed Jun 12 02:39:47 2013 From: allon at allonbar.com (Allon Bar) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:39:47 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Jun 12 04:41:05 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:41:05 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE: International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone As we are referring to specific US legislation - Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the State Secrets Privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act I'd like to understand the legislation. From what I can read FISA talks about establishing a court "which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States" and Section 215 then expands the scope of records searches dealt with by the court. This is obviously a concern to US citizens but a letter from international organisations should pick up on the issue of non US citizens. Can someone direct me to any relevant legislation that refers to non US citizens, if there is such legislation? Can our US friends tell us which bit of legislation, if any, allows the surveillance of non US citizens? I want to be clear whether this is happening outside of the law (an executive branch responsibility) or within the law (the legislative branch) Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)7713 399 597 Skype: andrewpuddephatt Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT gp-digital.org From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 12 June 2013 05:02 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter to the US government from international organisations. That letter would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you can point them towards this list too. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 02:30:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:30:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] c.a.'s speech at 16th CSTD opening ceremony In-Reply-To: <51AFE5C8.8090709@cafonso.ca> References: <51AFE5C8.8090709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0ae401ce627f$51c3fb10$f54bf130$@gmail.com> Very well said c.a.! M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:29 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] c.a.'s speech at 16th CSTD opening ceremony Hi people, I was invited by CSTD to participate in the opening ceremony of its 16th Session on June 03. Below is what I said. fraternal regards --c.a. ==================== Commision on Science and Technology for Development, Sixteenth session, Geneva, 3-7 June 2013 Opening Session Speech by Carlos Afonso, Executive Director, Nupef Institute, Brazil ======================================= Ambassador Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD; Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the ITU, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this Sixteenth Session of the UN CSTD as a member of a small civil society organization, committed to proactively contribute to the advance of ICTs for human development in my country. I am also one of the founding members of a relevant pluralist initiative in Internet governance in Brazil, created in 1995, when this concept was not yet in our minds, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee -- a joint initiative of government, academia, industry and NGOs. More than just a names and numbers assignment organization for Brazil's ".br" top domain name, the Steering Committee has the mission to oversee or advise on a broad range of issues related to the development and deployment of the Internet in our country. Since 2003, when a multistakeholder model of coordination was consolidated, a majority of its 21 members is elected every three years by civil society, the private sector, and the technical community. Our Steering Committee has been a reference for several countries in organizing multistakeholder processes of Internet governance. In 2009 the Steering Committee managed to reach consensus around its 10 Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil. Its publication has since been used as a reference in many foruns around the world, and was the starting point of a challenging proposal: a new bill of law setting a Framework of Civil Rights for the Internet in Brazil, known in Portuguese as the "Marco Civil da Internet". Marco Civil was elaborated during a long, 3-year process of open, highly participatory consultations with all sectors, until a final version of the bill of law was submitted to Congress last year. We are now struggling to preserve the essential tenets of Marco Civil as it is processed through Congress, against the heavy lobby of the telecommunications industry (which strongly opposes net neutrality) and the main media companies (which insist on facilities for takedown of content without due process of law, as well as imposing undue accountability on intermediaries). In short, these are more or less the same disputes we see in most countries, including the largest developed democracies. A strong indication of these and other challenges to a free and open Internet was the recent appeal, four days ago, of Neelie Kroes, the Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, which, along with the defense of an European single market for telecommunications, stresses the fundamental importance of guaranteeing net neutrality, among other fundamental rights. As the ITU-Unesco broadband commission stated in its 2012 report, "to date, the rapid, substantial growth in broadband has not translated into significant increases in Internet access in least developed countries (LDCs), where only 6 per cent of inhabitants had access as of 2011. This [percentage] is expected to more than double by 2015, but by then, the absolute gap with higher income countries is likely to grow even larger." And Susan Crawford makes a very strong case for the universalization of bidirectional high-speed broadband (for both upload and download) in every home and office, in her recent book "Captive Audience." True bidirectional high-speed, this is true broadband, with the guarantee of net neutrality and protection of other basic human rights for the end user. As I said in the opening ceremony at the IGF in Baku, the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to carry out the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We ought to preserve and enhance fundamental communication rights as synthesized in the Final Statement of the First WSIS+10 Review event held last February at Unesco Headquarters in Paris. As the Brazilian experience in pluralist governance exemplifies, any upcoming institutional arrangement for the governance of the Internet should never be restricted to just multilateral structures -- we may need new governance mechanisms, but these must emphasize full participation of all sectors from policy conception to decision-making. Let us hope that the current CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation sheds a brilliant light on the path to the proper ways of effective international collaboration. Let the Internet continue to flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Kabob mailing list Kabob at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/kabob From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 05:04:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:04:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Global Principles on National Security Message-ID: <135301ce674b$ea663ce0$bf32b6a0$@gmail.com> Very pertinent and extremely timely... after a very quick run through, perhaps something that could be supported as part of any statement produced by either the IGC or BB. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:10 AM To: liberationtech Subject: [liberationtech] Global Principles on National Security Whistleblower Hi all, this email to share the today release of the "The Global Principles on National Security and Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles)" by the Open Society Foundation. That's a set of Policy Guidelines for the protection of National Security Whistleblower. Those Principles address the topic of Whistleblowing and National Security and has been done in cooperation with 22 organizations: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/global-principles-nationa l-security-and-freedom-information-tshwane-principles As a summary i suggest reading "Understanding the Tshwane Principles": http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane- principles It is very interesting to note that Snowden, the Whistleblower of NSA PRISM saga, would had been protected under Principles 43 and 46 (and maybe under Principle 40). A blog post with an analysis on the case related to that principles is being prepared. For media and analysts interested on it, they may contact sandra.coliver at opensocietyfoundations.org and jonathan.birchall at opensocietyfoundations.org . Regards, -- Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) HERMES - Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights http://logioshermes.org - http://globaleaks.org - http://tor2web.org -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 07:46:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:16:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] The time for global rules on data usage has come Message-ID: <51B85F92.10405@itforchange.net> Newspaper editorials are saying, which sadly, the global civil society still remains shy to say ..... *The time for global rules on data usage has come*** The Independent (London). [Editorial]. 11/06/2013. Blanket monitoring of non-US internet activity will not stop terrorism For William Hague, the purpose of yesterday’s House of Commons statement was to allay fears that Britain’s security services piggyback on the privacy invasions of their less legally circumscribed US counterparts. Taking care to give little away, the Foreign Secretary described such suggestions as “baseless” and talked convincingly of a system replete with checks and balances. But even if our own spies are models of integrity, and our own laws paradigms of privacy-protection, the less stringent standards in the US are hardly less of a cause for concern. Yes, we live in a dangerous world. Just weeks after the Woolwich murder and the Boston bombing, it would be difficult to maintain otherwise. A degree of privacy is therefore compromised, in the interests of mutual security. But this is no binary choice, it is a balance to be struck; and the latest revelations from the US suggest that the scales have tipped too far. It is nonsense that the National Security Agency’s blanket monitoring of non-US citizens’ internet activity is necessary to combat terrorism. The majority of attacks are homegrown. Moreover, the fact that the same indiscriminate approach is not applied to US residents indicates Washington is well aware how badly such measures play with voters. But while NSA access to telephone records raised questions for the US, the Prism internet surveillance system raises questions for everyone else. It is also an incidence of gross overreach. At this stage, there is some dispute about Prism. The companies involved – Google, Facebook, Skype et al – deny that the NSA has access to their servers. But the broader issue remains pertinent regardless of the specifics. Europe and the US have been at loggerheads over data protection for more than a decade. In the past few months alone, EU proposals for new rules have provoked a storm of protest from US internet giants and warnings of a “trade war” from its diplomats. The latest insights only add fuel to the fire, even more so given that talks are set to start on a groundbreaking EU/US trade pact next month and American technology companies are lobbying for a watering down of the Commission proposals as part of the deal. Much as trade liberalisation is to be welcomed, Brussels must stick to its guns on matters of privacy. Data hoards that were troubling enough in the context of commercial activity are more unacceptable still when potentially accessible by the US government – or, indeed, any government. Nor is it enough to claim that the innocent have nothing to fear. The internet requires the fundamentals of privacy and ownership to be re-written. These new principles must be clarified in law, not allowed to drift, guided by considerations of national security alone. Such concerns are neither wrong, nor necessarily malevolent; but they are limited. Even if enough of an agreement can be reached to allow an EU/US deal to go ahead – by drawing a line around matters of national security, perhaps – the problem is unlikely to be solved. With US companies so dominant online, however, they cannot be fudged forever. Indeed, even as we are spooked by foreign ownership of British infrastructure, foreign ownership of vast swathes of personal data – the potential uses of which can barely be imagined – is going ahead largely unchecked. There is, then, a compelling case for global rules on data usage by which all internet companies would be bound. Such things take time, though. In the meantime, the US must take care not to ruin one of its most successful industries. Internet users may flock to Google and the rest now, but a non-American, NSA-free rival might find itself with a competitive advantage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 10:22:37 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:22:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> Message-ID: <7AE72135-30BF-4554-891A-067963167ED5@ciroap.org> On 12/06/2013, at 10:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. Here is a clean copy, the text has changed quite a bit: Members of US Congress: We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world - but mostly important, from countries deaply affected by the recent news - to express our serious alarm regarding recent revelations of Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US nationals lead by the United States government; and further our concern that US authorities may have made the data resulted from surveillance activities available to other states, including possibly to Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be complicit in these practices.[2] The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. Such actions are uneceptable and raise serious concerns about extra-territorial serious violations of human rights and the inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies.[3] Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of a citizenry unable to form or communicate private thoughts without surveillance by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy: it violates fundamental human dignity and threatens the fundamental right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression that is at the centre of democratic practice. Without the actions of those with the courage to defend the human rights of others even at considerable personal risk through making these practices known to the general public this mass surveillance programme might never have come to light. Such whistleblowers play an essential role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. Their actions and their person should be protected and their efforts to combat these mass violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens must be supported. There are already signs that the revelations of widespread surveillance of US and non-US nationals online has undermined the global leadership of the United States on the promotion of Internet freedom worldwide, including through the considerable efforts of its State Department. Unless Congress takes assertive action to undo this damage, we see the moral credibility of the United States in the global community on Internet freedom issues being fatally impacted. There revelations may also carry repercussions on the global stage. They suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is notable that only last year, the United States government supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which "[a]ffirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[4] The contradiction between this affirmation of human rights online and the recently revealed evidence of what appears to be mass surveillance of US and non-US nationals is very disturbing. A cross regional statement made on behalf of US and others on Monday 10 June correctly emphasized “that when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under international human rights law and full respect for human rights must be maintained.”[5] Two days ago, civil society groups including many signatories to this letter joined together to raise serious concerns about these issues with the United Nations Human Rights Council.[5] We did so in light of the recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue.[6] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to express their concerns about the compliance of the programme with domestic law.[7] We therefore demand that action be taken to immediately dismantle and prevent the creation now and in the future of a global Internet based surveillance system. Affected companies must be authorised to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received. We further call on the United States Congress and the President as appropriate to protect the whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign citizens.[8] > But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. Let's try to send tomorrow/Thursday, can we close it at noon GMT? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 10:32:48 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:32:48 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <7AE72135-30BF-4554-891A-067963167ED5@ciroap.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <7AE72135-30BF-4554-891A-067963167ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0116BCC8-FBA1-4078-BC06-A550EBBF9EE9@ciroap.org> On 12/06/2013, at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/06/2013, at 10:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > > Here is a clean copy, the text has changed quite a bit: And please excuse the spelling errors in the version I pasted; in between reading and copy/pasting here, someone else started editing text and hadn't finished copy-editing it. The version currently at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here is better. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 10:35:30 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:35:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <0116BCC8-FBA1-4078-BC06-A550EBBF9EE9@ciroap.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <7AE72135-30BF-4554-891A-067963167ED5@ciroap.org> <0116BCC8-FBA1-4078-BC06-A550EBBF9EE9@ciroap.org> Message-ID: yes, I have done some editing, that does not apper below, including changing phrases and paragraphs around for logic of thought C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/06/2013, at 10:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/06/2013, at 10:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > > > Here is a clean copy, the text has changed quite a bit: > > > And please excuse the spelling errors in the version I pasted; in between > reading and copy/pasting here, someone else started editing text and hadn't > finished copy-editing it. The version currently at > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here is better. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 11:58:08 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:58:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5B07D7BB-0820-4A3C-85D4-25489C4D2746@cdt.org> Message-ID: <29682C9B-36D8-482F-A198-AEA34562D994@cdt.org> Ugh--used the old BestBits address. Using the new one. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hi everyone--I'm not sure how BestBits got dropped from this thread? I thought that was going to be the main channel for work on this letter. So, adding back. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> FAA was reauthorized in December 2012 until 2017. When dealing with Congress specific is always best but for now and for this group's purposes I think that just getting across the need for action is sufficient; the discussion about what specific amendments would be appropriate is a much more complex one that will take some time (you'll note that even the domestic advocacy effort, stopwatching.us, is still fuzzy on exactly what it is asking for). >> >> Also, some who weren't on the original thread asked what Andrew's original questions were; they are below my sig. Also, to answer an aspect of the question I didn't answer before: unlike the original Bush-era version of the NSA programs, the most recently revealed aspects all seem to be occuring under FISA court order as per authorities in the FISA statute. We don't think that the statutes actually do or should authorize these things, but the Administration and the FISA court and many members of Congress clearly disagree. That's why we need to change the statutes, to the extent we can. Otherwise, there's little to be done (except successfully challenge the statutes on constitutional grounds, although as the Clapper case demonstrated, achieving standing to bring such a challenge can be very difficult.) >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Andrew Puddephatt >>> Subject: [bestbits] RE: International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> Date: June 12, 2013 4:41:05 AM EDT >>> To: 'Jeremy Malcolm' , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >>> Cc: "webwewant at googlegroups.com" , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" >>> >>> Hi everyone >>> >>> As we are referring to specific US legislation - Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the State Secrets Privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act I’d like to understand the legislation. From what I can read FISA talks about establishing a court “which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States” and Section 215 then expands the scope of records searches dealt with by the court. This is obviously a concern to US citizens but a letter from international organisations should pick up on the issue of non US citizens. >>> >>> Can someone direct me to any relevant legislation that refers to non US citizens, if there is such legislation? Can our US friends tell us which bit of legislation, if any, allows the surveillance of non US citizens? I want to be clear whether this is happening outside of the law (an executive branch responsibility) or within the law (the legislative branch) >>> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >>> Kevin >>> >>> That’s helpful thanks – does the case in the Supreme Court, Clapper v Amnesty International which was thrown out in 2013 have any bearing? As I understand it, it challenged the general provisions to acquire communications without “probable cause” but Amnesty as the plaintiff could not establish injury to anyone? From your brief the key change we would be looking for is amendment of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 2008 which set this in motion. Do you know when this next requires authorisation (if it does?) >>> >>> Of course it maybe that any general letter should avoid specific references to legislation, as the current draft seems to, but I would be interested in your views as to whether it is more effective in the US context to raise a general complaint or to focus upon specific legislative/executive changes that you want to achieve? >>> Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director >>> GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 >>> Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 >>> Mobile: +44 (0)7713 399 597 >>> Skype: andrewpuddephatt >>> Address: Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> gp-digital.org >>> >>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston >>> Sent: 12 June 2013 15:40 >>> To: anriette at apc.org >>> Cc: michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> >>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>> >>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do my best! >>> >>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA Court. >>> >>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside of America. >>> >>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>> >>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also allowing without any court authorization the interception of any foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>> >>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> >>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>> >>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. >>> >>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>> > I`ve commented as well and also >>> around all day... >>> >>> > >>> >>> > M >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> >>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On >>> >>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>> >>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>> Congress to >>> >>> > follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>> around all day if needed. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation >>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter >>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, >>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>> >>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have >>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>> >>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>> >>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you >>> > can point them towards this list too. >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -- >>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> Google Groups >>> >>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> it, send an >>> >>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> >>> > For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 11:58:48 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:58:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> Message-ID: <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... Kevin On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list back into cc. > > In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big comment. > > The tweaks: > > 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. > > 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. > > The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.us coalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > > Thanks, > K > > PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights impact of this issue. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. >> >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Hi folks, >> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom Online Coalition meeting. >> best >> joana >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Kevin, >> >> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >> >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >> >> >> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do my best! >> >> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA Court. >> >> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside of America. >> >> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >> >> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also allowing without any court authorization the interception of any foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >> >> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >> >> Best, >> Kevin >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>> >>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. >>> >>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>> > I`ve commented as well and also >>> around all day... >>> >>> > >>> >>> > M >>> >>> > >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> >>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On >>> >>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>> >>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>> Congress to >>> >>> > follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>>> around all day if needed. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation >>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter >>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, >>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>> >>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have >>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>> >>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>> >>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you >>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>> >>>> >>> > >>> >>> > -- >>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> Google Groups >>> >>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>> >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>> it, send an >>> >>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> >>> > For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 11:59:02 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:59:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <29682C9B-36D8-482F-A198-AEA34562D994@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5B07D7BB-0820-4A3C-85D4-25489C4D2746@cdt.org> <29682C9B-36D8-482F-A198-AEA34562D994@cdt.org> Message-ID: +1 on Kevin comments On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Ugh--used the old BestBits address. Using the new one. > > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Hi everyone--I'm not sure how BestBits got dropped from this thread? I > thought that was going to be the main channel for work on this letter. So, > adding back. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > FAA was reauthorized in December 2012 until 2017. When dealing with > Congress specific is always best but for now and for this group's purposes > I think that just getting across the need for action is sufficient; the > discussion about what specific amendments would be appropriate is a much > more complex one that will take some time (you'll note that even the > domestic advocacy effort, stopwatching.us, is still fuzzy on exactly what > it is asking for). > > Also, some who weren't on the original thread asked what Andrew's original > questions were; they are below my sig. Also, to answer an aspect of the > question I didn't answer before: unlike the original Bush-era version of > the NSA programs, the most recently revealed aspects all seem to be > occuring under FISA court order as per authorities in the FISA statute. We > don't think that the statutes actually do or should authorize these things, > but the Administration and the FISA court and many members of Congress > clearly disagree. That's why we need to change the statutes, to the extent > we can. Otherwise, there's little to be done (except successfully > challenge the statutes on constitutional grounds, although as the Clapper > case demonstrated, achieving standing to bring such a challenge can be very > difficult.) > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Andrew Puddephatt > *Subject: **[bestbits] RE: International civil society letter to Congress > to follow up from HRC statement* > *Date: *June 12, 2013 4:41:05 AM EDT > *To: *'Jeremy Malcolm' , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > *Cc: *"webwewant at googlegroups.com" , " > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> > > Hi everyone**** > > As we are referring to specific US legislation - Section 215 of the USA > PATRIOT Act, the State Secrets Privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act I’d > like to understand the legislation. From what I can read FISA talks about > establishing a court “*which shall have jurisdiction to hear > applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance > anywhere within the United States” and Section 215 then expands the scope > of records searches dealt with by the court. This is obviously a concern > to US citizens but a letter from international organisations should pick up > on the issue of non US citizens.* > * * > *Can someone direct me to any relevant legislation that refers to non US > citizens, if there is such legislation? Can our US friends tell us which > bit of legislation, if any, allows the surveillance of non US citizens? I > want to be clear whether this is happening outside of the law (an executive > branch responsibility) or within the law (the legislative branch)*** > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > > Kevin**** > > That’s helpful thanks – does the case in the Supreme Court, *Clapper v > Amnesty International* which was thrown out in 2013 have any bearing? As > I understand it, it challenged the general provisions to acquire > communications without “probable cause” but Amnesty as the plaintiff could > not establish injury to anyone? From your brief the key change we would > be looking for is amendment of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 2008 which > set this in motion. Do you know when this next requires authorisation (if > it does?) **** > > Of course it maybe that any general letter should avoid specific > references to legislation, as the current draft seems to, but I would be > interested in your views as to whether it is more effective in the US > context to raise a general complaint or to focus upon specific > legislative/executive changes that you want to achieve?**** > > *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director > *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL**** > Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 > Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)7713 399 597 > Skype: andrewpuddephatt**** > > Address: Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT**** > > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:* webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Kevin Bankston > *Sent:* 12 June 2013 15:40 > *To:* anriette at apc.org > *Cc:* michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress > to follow up from HRC statement**** > ** ** > > > By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions.**** > > ** ** > I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. > And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's > provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state > secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do > my best!**** > ** ** > To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a > quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism > investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United > States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United > States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it > implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent > residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is > an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA > Court. **** > ** ** > These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans > communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) > records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. > Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent > that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside > of America.**** > ** ** > FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code:**** > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36**** > ** ** > In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps > ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen > registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV > with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was > significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter > VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and > seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing > "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at > least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also > allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority > under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it.**** > ** ** > Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and > especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy > of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, > especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of > international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish > such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! **** > ** ** > Best,**** > Kevin**** > ____________________________________**** > Kevin S. Bankston**** > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director**** > Center for Democracy & Technology**** > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100**** > Washington, DC 20006**** > 202.407.8834 direct**** > 202.637.0968 fax**** > kbankston at cdt.org**** > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech**** > ** ** > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote:**** > > > **** > We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > > But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let > Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. > > By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. > > Anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > > I`ve commented as well and also**** > around all day... > > **** > > > > **** > > M > > **** > > > > **** > > -----Original Message----- > > **** > > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com**** > [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On > > **** > > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > > **** > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > > **** > > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com;**** > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > **** > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to**** > Congress to > > **** > > follow up from HRC statement > > **** > > > > **** > > > > **** > > Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be > around all day if needed. > > Anriette > > On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation > > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter > > to the US government from international organisations. That letter > > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, > > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to > > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > > > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have > > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) > > > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently > > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on > > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you > > can point them towards this list too. > > **** > > > > **** > > -- > > **** > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the**** > Google Groups > > **** > > "Web We Want working group" group. > > **** > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from**** > it, send an > > **** > > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > **** > > For more options, visit**** > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > > > **** > > > > **** > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** > ** ** > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > ** ** > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 11:59:28 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:59:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: + 1 on Kevin's comments On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > > Kevin > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists was > going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list back > into cc. > > In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big > comment. > > The tweaks: > > 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem > to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for > calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the > Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm > one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that > program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies > participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court > and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never > know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. > > 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" to > "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden by > law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. > > The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph > focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the > main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of > debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is > trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > > Thanks, > K > > PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and the > Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights > impact of this issue. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Hi all > > I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. > > C > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >> Online Coalition meeting. >> best >> joana >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Kevin, >>> >>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say - >>> besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>> >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex >>>> law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to >>>> FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the >>>> state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But >>>> I'll do my best! >>>> >>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a >>>> quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>> Court. >>>> >>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to >>>> the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>> of America. >>>> >>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>> >>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>> >>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Kevin >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>> >>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to >>>> let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>> Friday. >>>> >>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>> > >>>> > M >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] >>>> On >>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>> Congress to >>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>>> around all day if needed. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation >>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter >>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, >>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>> >>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have >>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>> >>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>> >>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you >>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>> send an >>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jun 12 12:02:26 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:02:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: As I've mentioned in the document: I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > + 1 on Kevin's comments > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >> >> Kevin >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >> back into cc. >> >> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >> comment. >> >> The tweaks: >> >> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem >> to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for >> calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the >> Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm >> one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that >> program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies >> participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court >> and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never >> know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >> >> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" to >> "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden by >> law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >> >> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >> >> Thanks, >> K >> >> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >> impact of this issue. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. >> >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>> Online Coalition meeting. >>> best >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Kevin, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say >>>> - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>> >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex >>>>> law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to >>>>> FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the >>>>> state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But >>>>> I'll do my best! >>>>> >>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a >>>>> quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>> Court. >>>>> >>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to >>>>> the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>> of America. >>>>> >>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>> >>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kevin >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>> >>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to >>>>> let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>> Friday. >>>>> >>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>> > >>>>> > M >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] >>>>> On >>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>> Congress to >>>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation >>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>> letter >>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, >>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>> >>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>> have >>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>>> >>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>>> >>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, >>>>> you >>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups >>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>> send an >>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 6 05:32:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:02:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> The article confirms my view that in proposing this opinion draft, Brazil meant only the ICANN plus system of technical governance of the Internet (also called management of critical Internet resources) in which the way to 'operationalise' the role governments was sought to be explored. On the other hand, the excitement among civil society around this 'opinion' comes from taking it to mean the entire gamut of Internet governance. Before any progress can be made on this 'issue' it is important to match 'definitions'. I suspect that civil society is 'mistakenly' getting excited about this opinion; this is about improving government influence on ICANN system. It is not about the entire global Internet governance. I think the 'opinion' proposal came from the telecom/ anatel side of Brazilian government which is overly influenced/ taken by a definition of 'Internet governance' promoted by the ITU - whereby it is considered to cover only what 'ICANN plus' system does . (Remember, the famous ITU's assertions that WCIT is not about Internet governance, or that the ITU has no interest to get into internet governance). We all know that this is contrary to definition of Internet governance articulated by WGIG, which is the way IG is understood in the mainstream. Note, the unfortunate wrong usage of the term Internet governance as only meaning the ICANN system in the article below: "Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. …... The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. " Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just the ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of Internet governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet governance. This is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the present set up.... parminder On Wednesday 05 June 2013 08:13 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thought this might be of interest to the list. > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ > > > OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE > > June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · > in Daniel Cavalcanti > , > Internet , WTPF-13 > > > wtpf-13-blog > The World > Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) > provided a unique opportunity > to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the > international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the > participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet > Governance. > > Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach > to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a > vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s > Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten > “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, > at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve > full engagement of governments in the decision making process on > Internet Governance. > > The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory > role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement > in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even > long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had > little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their > direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have > suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of > governments in existing international Internet Governance fora. > > In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to > the fact that we must together address two key issues: > operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder > framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building > on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least > developed countries, with the support of the ITU. > > Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of > government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance > ” stems from one > previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG) > , which had resulted > from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the > participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. > > During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive > consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, > sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a > result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised > version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could > have been endorsed. > > The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements > from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary > sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve > consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive > feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a > willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the > focal point. > > The final report by the Chairman > of the WTPF indicates, as > a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU > Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. > Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU > Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the > inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming > World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) > and > the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14) > . > > Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues > to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. > Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from > the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the > Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same > issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a > meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision > making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly > multistakeholder international Internet Governance. > > / > cavalcanti By > Daniel B. Cavalcanti/ > > /Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the > Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the > National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his > work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues./ > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 12:07:46 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:07:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did as a clear violation of the law. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > As I've mentioned in the document: > > I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > + 1 on Kevin's comments > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > > Kevin > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list back into cc. >> >> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big comment. >> >> The tweaks: >> >> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >> >> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >> >> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.us coalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >> >> Thanks, >> K >> >> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights impact of this issue. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. >>> >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom Online Coalition meeting. >>> best >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Kevin, >>> >>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>> >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> >>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do my best! >>> >>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA Court. >>> >>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside of America. >>> >>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>> >>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also allowing without any court authorization the interception of any foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>> >>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>> >>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. >>>> >>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> > I`ve commented as well and also >>>> around all day... >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > M >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com >>>> [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On >>>> >>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>> >>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> >>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>> Congress to >>>> >>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation >>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter >>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, >>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>> >>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have >>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>>> >>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>>> >>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you >>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > -- >>>> >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> Google Groups >>>> >>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>> it, send an >>>> >>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> > For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >> > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:09:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:09:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: <166b01ce6787$446ec8c0$cd4c5a40$@gmail.com> +1 to your comment on the whistleblowing paragraph. M From: Carolina Rossini [mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:59 AM To: Kevin Bankston Cc: Joana Varon; anriette at apc.org Esterhuysen; michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement + 1 on Kevin's comments On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... Kevin On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list back into cc. In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big comment. The tweaks: 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.us coalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. Thanks, K PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights impact of this issue. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Hi all I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Hi folks, Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom Online Coalition meeting. best joana On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Kevin, Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do my best! To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA Court. These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside of America. FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also allowing without any court authorization the interception of any foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! Best, Kevin ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. Anriette On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to > follow up from HRC statement > > Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be around all day if needed. Anriette On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter > to the US government from international organisations. That letter > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you > can point them towards this list too. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:12:03 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:12:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually public interest. So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else would work in this case. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where > your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did > as a clear violation of the law. > > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > As I've mentioned in the document: > > I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future of > the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy is > in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also > part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement > to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> + 1 on Kevin's comments >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>> >>> Kevin >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>> back into cc. >>> >>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>> comment. >>> >>> The tweaks: >>> >>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem >>> to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am all for >>> calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation with the >>> Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the record, I'm >>> one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA over that >>> program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the companies >>> participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the FISA court >>> and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we would never >>> know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>> >>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>> >>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> K >>> >>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>> impact of this issue. >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. >>> >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>> best >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kevin, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to say >>>>> - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex >>>>>> law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to >>>>>> FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the >>>>>> state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But >>>>>> I'll do my best! >>>>>> >>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give >>>>>> a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>> Court. >>>>>> >>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to >>>>>> the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>> of America. >>>>>> >>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>> >>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>> >>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to >>>>>> let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>> Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > M >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] >>>>>> On >>>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>> Congress to >>>>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be >>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>> Foundation >>>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>> letter >>>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>> Council, >>>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>> have >>>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>>>> >>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>>>> >>>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently >>>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, >>>>>> you >>>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups >>>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an >>>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>> south africa >>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jun 12 12:13:39 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:13:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: "So we need others to protect him from US.." then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his protection, isnt it? On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually > public interest. > So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else > would work in this case. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >> as a clear violation of the law. >> >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> As I've mentioned in the document: >> >> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>> >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>> back into cc. >>>> >>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>> comment. >>>> >>>> The tweaks: >>>> >>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>> >>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>> >>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> K >>>> >>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>> impact of this issue. >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the letter. >>>> >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>> best >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>> >>>>>> C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give >>>>>>> a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to >>>>>>> the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > M >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On >>>>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>> letter >>>>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That letter >>>>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to >>>>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an >>>>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jun 12 12:22:22 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:22:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and leave the last part of the final paragraph: "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign citizens.[9]" On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > "So we need others to protect him from US.." > > then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > protection, isnt it? > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >> public interest. >> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else >> would work in this case. >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>> as a clear violation of the law. >>> >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>> >>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>> >>>>> Kevin >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>>> back into cc. >>>>> >>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>> comment. >>>>> >>>>> The tweaks: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>>> >>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> K >>>>> >>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>>> impact of this issue. >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>> letter. >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>> best >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > M >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On >>>>>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:43:45 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:43:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: HI all, It feels it is time to take a step back and let Jeremy clean up the document. Or if he cannot, who can? C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >> >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >> protection, isnt it? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >>> public interest. >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything >>> else would work in this case. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>>> as a clear violation of the law. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>>> >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>>> >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought >>>>>> bestbists was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding >>>>>> that list back into cc. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> The tweaks: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish >>>>>> statistics" to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they >>>>>> are forbidden by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow >>>>>> them to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement >>>>>> and the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human >>>>>> rights impact of this issue. >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>>> letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>>> > I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > M >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On >>>>>>>>> > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>>> > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>>> > follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. >>>>>>>>> Will be >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>> > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>>> > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>> > to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>> > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>>> > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>>> > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and >>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>> > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>>> > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>>> > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>>> > can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>>> > "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>> it, send an >>>>>>>>> > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Jun 12 12:47:16 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:47:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round the bend. I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? anriette On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >> >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >> protection, isnt it? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >>> public interest. >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else >>> would work in this case. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>>> as a clear violation of the law. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>>> >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>>> >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>>>> back into cc. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> The tweaks: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>>>> impact of this issue. >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>>> letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:50:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:50:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: michael gurstein Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Good statement!**** ** ** M**** ** ** *From:* David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:15 PM *To:* ip *Subject:* [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy**** ** ** [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 12 June 2013] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe.**** **** While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.**** **** The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards.**** **** The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the *OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data*, the Council of Europe *Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data*, the EU Data Protection framework, and the *APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system.***** **** Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights.**** **** The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere.**** **** The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society.**** **** About the Internet Society**** The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org**** **** Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773**** _______________________________________________**** Archives | ModifyYour Subscription | Unsubscribe Now **** **** ** ** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 12:50:20 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:50:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Message-ID: <7547E286-FA40-478E-A68D-5EBEF142A80C@cdt.org> I'm afraid not Sent via mobile On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: >> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and >> leave the last part of the final paragraph: >> >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat >> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American >> and foreign citizens.[9]" >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >>> >>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >>> protection, isnt it? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >>>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >>>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >>>> public interest. >>>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else >>>> would work in this case. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> >>>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>>>> as a clear violation of the law. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>>>> >>>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>>>>> back into cc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>>>> comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tweaks: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>>>>> impact of this issue. >>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>>>> letter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Jun 12 13:06:28 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:36:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <7547E286-FA40-478E-A68D-5EBEF142A80C@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <7547E286-FA40-478E-A68D-5EBEF142A80C@cdt.org> Message-ID: I agree with Joana and Anriette that a reference to at least our own concern and support for whistleblowers should stay in. Unless we want to write a whole separate statement on that (which is perhaps worth considering, seeing the USA's recent record on this count). I also support the changes suggested by Joana which ensure we do no longer address the USA as a "global leader on Internet freedom" while still pointing out how the USA is hurting its own credibility with these revelations. Neither do I consider the USA a leader in this field, nor does the Internet Democracy Project associate with the term "Internet freedom" to describe its field of work - and I think we might not be alone in this. Many thanks to all who have been working on this. Best, Anja On 12 June 2013 22:20, Kevin Bankston wrote: > I'm afraid not > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > > the bend. > > > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > > > anriette > > > > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > >> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > >> leave the last part of the final paragraph: > >> > >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > >> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > >> and foreign citizens.[9]" > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >> > >>> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >>> > >>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >>> protection, isnt it? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > >>>> public interest. > >>>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything > else > >>>> would work in this case. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, > where > >>>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > >>>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>> > >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the > future > >>>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, > the guy > >>>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him > is also > >>>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our > Statement > >>>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement > to > >>>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > >>>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding > that list > >>>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one > big > >>>>>>> comment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I > am > >>>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > >>>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval > (for the > >>>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T > and the NSA > >>>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now > the > >>>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret > *order* of the > >>>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those > orders we > >>>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the > "complicity" brush. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > >>>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are > forbidden > >>>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to > do so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > >>>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction > from the > >>>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > >>>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from > what he is > >>>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> K > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement > and > >>>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global > human rights > >>>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>>> letter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> C > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the > Freedom > >>>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space > to > >>>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of > authority ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act > was an > >>>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not > a separate > >>>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is > no statute > >>>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence > and terrorism > >>>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside > the United > >>>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the > United > >>>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the > extent it > >>>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized > permanent > >>>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter > authority which is > >>>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going > through the FISA > >>>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the > US, 3) > >>>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the > US. > >>>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent > >>>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > >>>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, > III with pen > >>>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders > since it was > >>>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, > Subchapter > >>>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided > the new and > >>>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > >>>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications > where at > >>>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, > while also > >>>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is > the authority > >>>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand > it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > >>>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact > the privacy > >>>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks > and services, > >>>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance > of > >>>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to > accomplish > >>>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be > happy > >>>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send > tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] > On > >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. > Will > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy > International > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC > and I > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we > centralise on > >>>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>> @joana_varon > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Jun 6 06:15:59 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:15:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> References: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0000013f18fc5cb7-c3268bd6-6744-4186-b4c2-f39c1cdad018-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear Parminder, I wouldn't be willing to make that assumption, personally. Why not ask them what they meant? I, personally, suspect they did not intend it to be limited in the way you suggest, but neither of us really knows for sure. On 6 Jun 2013, at 11:32, parminder wrote: > Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just the ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of Internet governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet governance. This is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the present set up.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 13:06:38 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:06:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Message-ID: There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley Manning/Wikileaks) Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or corporate fraud. Do other countries besides the USA offer protections? gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >> > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >> protection, isnt it? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > >>> public interest. > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything > else > >>> would work in this case. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, > where > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________ > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>> > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the > future > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, > the guy > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him > is also > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our > Statement > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding > that list > >>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one > big > >>>>>> comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for > the > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and > the NSA > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now > the > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* > of the > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders > we > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" > brush. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are > forbidden > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to > do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction > from the > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what > he is > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> K > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement > and > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global > human rights > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>> letter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of > authority ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act > was an > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not > a separate > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no > statute > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and > terrorism > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the > extent it > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized > permanent > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority > which is > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through > the FISA > >>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the > US, 3) > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the > US. > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, > III with pen > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders > since it was > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, > Subchapter > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the > new and > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications > where at > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, > while also > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the > authority > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact > the privacy > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks > and services, > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance > of > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to > accomplish > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be > happy > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send > tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] > On > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. > Will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and > I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise > on > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >> @joana_varon > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 13:23:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] OSF - New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know Message-ID: PRESS RELEASES http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/new-principles-address-balance-between-national-security-and-publics-right-know New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know June 12, 2013 Open Society Justice Initiative New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know - - - The question of how to ensure public access to government information without jeopardizing legitimate efforts to protect people from national security threats is the focus of a new set of global principles being unveiled today. The new Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information are the result of over two years of consultation around the world, facilitated by the Open Society Justice Initiative and involving governments, former security officials, civil society groups, and academics. The Principles address in unprecedented detail the balance between secrecy and the public’s right to know, in a world that has been transformed by global efforts to combat terrorism and the parallel rise of new digital technologies, as well as the rapid growth of right to information laws. In addition to addressing what government-held information may legitimately be kept secret and what information should be disclosed, they outline standards for the treatment of whistleblowers who act in the public interest, as well as issues related to classification and declassification, and other questions. *Frank La Rue*, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, welcomed the launch of the Tshwane Principles, saying: “The Principles are a major contribution to the right of access to information and the right to truth concerning human rights violations, and I believe they should be adopted by the Human Rights Council. All states should reflect these Principles in their interpretations of national security law.” The Principles are based on a survey of international and national law, standards, good practices, and the writings of experts. They were developed by 22 academic and civil society groups (listed below), who consulted over 500 experts from more than 70 countries, culminating in a meeting in Tshwane, South Africa, which gave the Principles their name. The process also involved working closely with the four special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and the media from the UN, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as with the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. *Lord Alex Carlile, Q.C., *the United Kingdom’s first Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (2001-11), and one of the experts involved in the consultations, said: “In my opinion the Principles provide an excellent international template. I hope that governments around the world will examine the Principles and adopt them, as a standard that is both aspirational and achievable.” The Principles, in draft form, have already played a role in supporting civil society arguments to modify some of the most troubling sections of South Africa’s Protection of State Information Law, recently adopted by South Africa’s parliament but not yet signed by the president. *Highlights of the Tshwane Principles include:* - Information should be kept secret only if its disclosure poses “a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest” (Principle 3) - Information concerning serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law must always be disclosed (Principle 10A) - The public should have access to information on surveillance programs (Principle 10E) - No government entity should be categorically exempt from disclosure requirements (Principle 5) - Public officials who act in the public interest to expose government abuses should be protected from retaliation (Principle 40) *Further Statements of Support* *Ben Emmerson*, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: “The Tshwane Principles reflect global best practice in setting safeguards for balancing the protection of public interest disclosures and the disclosure of gross or systematic human rights violations against the need to maintain the secrecy of classified information. I have no doubt that they will come to be regarded as a significant step in promoting international consistency on these sensitive and difficult questions.” *Catalina Botero*, OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: “My office welcomes the Tshwane Principles as the appropriate balance to ensure state capacity to protect security and the protection of individual freedoms. We must not lose sight of the fact that security, in a democratic society, is not an end in itself. Its only purpose is to protect the capacity of institutions to guarantee all people the free exercise of their rights, without discrimination. History has shown time and again that efforts to increase security through the suppression of liberty have threatened both liberty and security.” *Pansy Tlakula*, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa: “These Global Principles could not have come at a more opportune time, given the recent adoption of a model law on access to information for Africa by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These principles complement the provisions of the model law and also seek to strike the requisite balance between the public’s right to know and the protection of legitimate national security interests, given the current global context of rising insecurity. For my home country, South Africa, it would certainly come in quite handy, as we struggle to resolve all the thorny issues implicated in the recently adopted Protection of State Information Bill.” *Dunja Mijatovic*, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media: “There is no security without free media and free expression and no free expression and free media without security. These two terms should come hand in hand and not fight each other like we see in so many parts of the world.” *Colonel Birame Diop*, director of Partners Senegal, a non-governmental group promoting peaceful development, and formerly a senior officer in the Senegalese Air Force with 30 years experience: "For years, most African militaries maintained a 'cat and mouse' relationship with the media, as well as the broader public. Today, fortunately, in many placed throughout the continent, the relationship between the military and the media is more respectful and trustful. The parties have realized that for their respective missions to be successful, and for democratic oversight of the security services, the military and the media need to engage openly. Based on my 30 years of military experience, I believe that the Tshwame Principles will help to strengthen this nascent dynamic that is slowly but surely improving the continent's security as well as its respect for the right to information." *Morton Halperin*, senior advisor to the Open Society Foundations, who served in the U.S. government under the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton administrations: “As societies deal with the continuing conflict between the right to know and claims of national security as well as how to evaluate acts of whistleblowers, these principles will provide a compelling guide grounded in experience and a deep commitment to the values of open society.” *The following groups were involved in drafting the principles:* - Africa Freedom of Information Centre, Kampala - African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF), Cape Town - Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información (Americas) - Amnesty International, London - Article 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, London - Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum Asia), Bangkok - Center for National Security Studies, Washington DC - Central European University, Budapest - Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), Wits University, Johannesburg - Centre for European Constitutionalization and Security (CECS), University of Copenhagen - Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria - Centre for Law and Democracy, Halifax - Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives (CDPI), Islamabad - Centre for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), Palermo University School of Law, Buenos Aires - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Cairo - Institute for Defence, Security and Peace Studies, Jakarta - Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria - International Commission of Jurists, Geneva - National Security Archive, Washington DC - Open Democracy Advice Centre, Cape Town - Open Society Justice Initiative, New York Learn More:Freedom of Information , Governance & Accountability in the United States , National Security & Counterterrorism , Rule of Law , Governance & Accountability , Media & Information , Rights & Justice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wongc at hrw.org Wed Jun 12 13:32:11 2013 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:32:11 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Message-ID: FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI, which does discuss protections for whistleblowers: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles I'm not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse). However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the intelligence/national security context? From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM To: Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley Manning/Wikileaks) Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or corporate fraud. Do other countries besides the USA offer protections? gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round the bend. I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? anriette On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >> >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >> protection, isnt it? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >>> public interest. >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else >>> would work in this case. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>> >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>>> as a clear violation of the law. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: >>>> >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>>> >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>>> >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>>>> back into cc. >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> The tweaks: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> K >>>>>> >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>>>> impact of this issue. >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>>> letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com >] On >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jun 12 14:16:21 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:16:21 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B78FEB.7070802@apc.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> Message-ID: Interesting point, Andrew. I believe if the statement becomes more technical, in terms of legal analysis, it could be stronger. For that, we will need help from our US based colleagues I guess. --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 12/06/2013, at 15:56, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Kevin > > That’s helpful thanks – does the case in the Supreme Court, Clapper v Amnesty International which was thrown out in 2013 have any bearing? As I understand it, it challenged the general provisions to acquire communications without “probable cause” but Amnesty as the plaintiff could not establish injury to anyone? From your brief the key change we would be looking for is amendment of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 2008 which set this in motion. Do you know when this next requires authorisation (if it does?) > > Of course it maybe that any general letter should avoid specific references to legislation, as the current draft seems to, but I would be interested in your views as to whether it is more effective in the US context to raise a general complaint or to focus upon specific legislative/executive changes that you want to achieve? > Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director > GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 > Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)7713 399 597 > Skype: andrewpuddephatt > Address: Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > gp-digital.org > > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston > Sent: 12 June 2013 15:40 > To: anriette at apc.org > Cc: michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > > By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. > > I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute for it. But I'll do my best! > > To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA Court. > > These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside of America. > > FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > > In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also allowing without any court authorization the interception of any foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > > Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > > Best, > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > > But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or Friday. > > By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's questions. > > Anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > > I`ve commented as well and also > around all day... > > > > > > M > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com > [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On > > > Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > > > Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > Congress to > > > follow up from HRC statement > > > > > > > > Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will be > around all day if needed. > > Anriette > > On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web Foundation > > yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society letter > > to the US government from international organisations. That letter > > would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights Council, > > and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International to > > participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > > continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > > > Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I have > > begun to put together, which awaits your comments and improvements: > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb URL) > > > Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > > fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened inadvertently > > last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on > > this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in others, you > > can point them towards this list too. > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups > > > "Web We Want working group" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an > > > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 14:25:20 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:25:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Message-ID: <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Hey everyone: So the current sentence at the end is this: "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat identifiable mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign citizens."[9] Would people be comfortable with: "We further call on the United States Congress to establish stronger protections for whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human rights of Americans and foreign citizens." I think that a call to immunize Snowden is both politically and more to the point legally implausible--and also I think is too narrow to serve our purpose, since it's just him. To the extent people would like to say something more expansive about whistleblowing, I think perhaps doing a separate letter as Anja suggests might be appropriate. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI, which does discuss protections for whistleblowers:http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles > > I’m not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse). However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the intelligence/national security context? > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM > To: Anriette Esterhuysen > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley Manning/Wikileaks) > > Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or corporate fraud. > > Do other countries besides the USA offer protections? > > gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > > > > On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >> > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >> protection, isnt it? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually > >>> public interest. > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else > >>> would work in this case. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >>> > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________ > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>> > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list > >>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big > >>>>>> comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> K > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>> letter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA > >>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] On > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >> @joana_varon > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 14:49:06 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:49:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: As people continue to make helpful suggestions on the letter, I want to be sure we all understand what the purpose of THIS particular communication is: 1. Are we trying to make the strongest possible statement of our views to the U.S. government AND have the maximum impact on the U.S. policy debate? Or 2. Are we trying to make the strongest possible statement to reflect global CSO views regardless of how it is received by U.S. policymakers? (there may be many other goals, i just highlight these two to make a point): If 1. is the goal, I believe Kevin and Carol have pointed out some helpful ways to navigate the U.S. environment and minimize a negative reaction from many policymakers who would generally support our goals; and the statement to the HRC already covers a very strong presentation with broadbased support and contribution from our colleagues. If 2. is the goal, then there is no need to temper individual views.... I believe both approaches have valuable attributes. I do believe that there is an opening given some of the shock in the U.S. at the scope of PRISM and related activity, that a more targeted approached tailored to U.S. policymakers could have more impact than a broader/stronger statement. Having said that, I in no way want any NGO to "give up" strong beliefs about protection of whistleblowers, or the characterization of the role the U.S has played in internet policy debates. I believe there is a way to frame this that preserves everyone's one prerogatives to express views on those (and other issues), but also pressures the U.S. to address hypocrisy and inconsistency in policy statements that are obvious in light of the recent revelations. It seems to me that a combination of Anriette's, Kevin's, Joana's, and Anja's suggestions (sorry, I may have missed others!) would protect everyone's views and make for a very strong statement. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hey everyone: > > So the current sentence at the end is this: > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat identifiable > mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign > citizens."[9] > > Would people be comfortable with: > "We further call on the United States Congress to establish stronger > protections for whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is > adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental > human rights of Americans and foreign citizens." > > I think that a call to immunize Snowden is both politically and more to > the point legally implausible--and also I think is too narrow to serve our > purpose, since it's just him. > > To the extent people would like to say something more expansive about > whistleblowing, I think perhaps doing a separate letter as Anja suggests > might be appropriate. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > > FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI, > which does discuss protections for whistleblowers: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles > **** > > I’m not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for > government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse). > However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the > intelligence/national security context?**** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits- > request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM > *To:* Anriette Esterhuysen > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress > to follow up from HRC statement**** > ** ** > > There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but > this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular > whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is > further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and > possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley > Manning/Wikileaks)**** > > Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or > corporate fraud.**** > > Do other countries besides the USA offer protections?**** > gp**** > > **** > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more > and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses***** > > > ** ** > On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:**** > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >> > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >> protection, isnt it? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > >>> public interest. > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything > else > >>> would work in this case. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, > where > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________ > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>> > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the > future > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, > the guy > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him > is also > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our > Statement > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding > that list > >>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one > big > >>>>>> comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for > the > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and > the NSA > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now > the > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* > of the > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders > we > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" > brush. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are > forbidden > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to > do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction > from the > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what > he is > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> K > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement > and > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global > human rights > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>> letter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of > authority ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act > was an > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not > a separate > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no > statute > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and > terrorism > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the > extent it > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized > permanent > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority > which is > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through > the FISA > >>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the > US, 3) > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the > US. > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, > III with pen > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders > since it was > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, > Subchapter > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the > new and > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications > where at > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, > while also > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the > authority > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact > the privacy > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks > and services, > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance > of > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to > accomplish > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be > happy > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send > tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] > On > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. > Will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and > I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise > on > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >> @joana_varon > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** > ** ** > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 15:14:54 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: I like the language proposed below, and I do think solves the debate on this. Joana, how you feel about it? On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hey everyone: > > So the current sentence at the end is this: > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat identifiable > mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign > citizens."[9] > > Would people be comfortable with: > "We further call on the United States Congress to establish stronger > protections for whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is > adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental > human rights of Americans and foreign citizens." > > I think that a call to immunize Snowden is both politically and more to > the point legally implausible--and also I think is too narrow to serve our > purpose, since it's just him. > > To the extent people would like to say something more expansive about > whistleblowing, I think perhaps doing a separate letter as Anja suggests > might be appropriate. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > > FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI, > which does discuss protections for whistleblowers: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles > **** > > I’m not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for > government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse). > However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the > intelligence/national security context?**** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits- > request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM > *To:* Anriette Esterhuysen > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress > to follow up from HRC statement**** > ** ** > > There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but > this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular > whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is > further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and > possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley > Manning/Wikileaks)**** > > Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or > corporate fraud.**** > > Do other countries besides the USA offer protections?**** > gp**** > > **** > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more > and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses***** > > > ** ** > On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:**** > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >> > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >> protection, isnt it? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > >>> public interest. > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything > else > >>> would work in this case. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, > where > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________ > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>> > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the > future > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, > the guy > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him > is also > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our > Statement > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding > that list > >>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one > big > >>>>>> comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for > the > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and > the NSA > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now > the > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* > of the > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders > we > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" > brush. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are > forbidden > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to > do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction > from the > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what > he is > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> K > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement > and > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global > human rights > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>> letter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of > authority ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act > was an > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not > a separate > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no > statute > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and > terrorism > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the > United > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the > extent it > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized > permanent > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority > which is > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through > the FISA > >>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the > US, 3) > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the > US. > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, > III with pen > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders > since it was > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, > Subchapter > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the > new and > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications > where at > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, > while also > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the > authority > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact > the privacy > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks > and services, > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance > of > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to > accomplish > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be > happy > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send > tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] > On > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. > Will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and > I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise > on > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >> @joana_varon > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** > ** ** > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Jun 12 15:25:49 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:55:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: Dear Gene and all, As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an agenda already set for us. I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement acceptable to all. And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the whistle-blowers issue, by the way. Thanks and best regards, Anja -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katherine at accessnow.org Wed Jun 12 15:29:08 2013 From: katherine at accessnow.org (Katherine Maher) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:29:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: I would like to also +1 Kevin's proposed language. It's worth noting that the media in the United States is a significant driver of discourse and legislative action. Already there are competing media narratives that would seek to delegitimize these revelations on the basis of the means by which they have been presented -- that is, via leaking or whistleblowing. From a strategic perspective that would seek to advance reforms, I would suggest such a focus could undermine efficacy on this issue and Snowden's stated intent, which appears to be forcing a discussion on pervasive, persistent surveillance. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > I like the language proposed below, and I do think solves the debate on > this. > > Joana, how you feel about it? > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Hey everyone: >> >> So the current sentence at the end is this: >> >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat identifiable >> mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign >> citizens."[9] >> >> Would people be comfortable with: >> "We further call on the United States Congress to establish stronger >> protections for whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is >> adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental >> human rights of Americans and foreign citizens." >> >> I think that a call to immunize Snowden is both politically and more to >> the point legally implausible--and also I think is too narrow to serve our >> purpose, since it's just him. >> >> To the extent people would like to say something more expansive about >> whistleblowing, I think perhaps doing a separate letter as Anja suggests >> might be appropriate. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: >> >> FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI, >> which does discuss protections for whistleblowers: >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles >> **** >> >> I’m not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for >> government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse). >> However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the >> intelligence/national security context?**** >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits- >> request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM >> *To:* Anriette Esterhuysen >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress >> to follow up from HRC statement**** >> ** ** >> >> There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but >> this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular >> whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is >> further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and >> possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley >> Manning/Wikileaks)**** >> >> Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or >> corporate fraud.**** >> >> Do other countries besides the USA offer protections?**** >> gp**** >> >> **** >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more >> and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses***** >> >> >> ** ** >> On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:**** >> >> Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round >> the bend. >> >> I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. >> >> Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make >> reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such >> protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? >> >> anriette >> >> >> On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: >> > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and >> > leave the last part of the final paragraph: >> > >> > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the >> > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat >> > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of >> American >> > and foreign citizens.[9]" >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> > >> >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >> >> >> >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >> >> protection, isnt it? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >> >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >> >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and >> actually >> >>> public interest. >> >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything >> else >> >>> would work in this case. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston > >wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, >> where >> >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >> >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >> >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what >> Snowden did >> >>>> as a clear violation of the law. >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________ >> >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >> >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >> >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >> >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >> >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >> >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >> >>>> >> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >> >>>> >> >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the >> future >> >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, >> the guy >> >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him >> is also >> >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our >> Statement >> >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement >> to >> >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston > >wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Kevin >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought >> bestbists >> >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding >> that list >> >>>>>> back into cc. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one >> big >> >>>>>> comment. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The tweaks: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >> >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I >> am >> >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's >> cooperation >> >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval >> (for the >> >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T >> and the NSA >> >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now >> the >> >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret >> *order* of the >> >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those >> orders we >> >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the >> "complicity" brush. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish >> statistics" >> >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are >> forbidden >> >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to >> do so. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the >> paragraph >> >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction >> from the >> >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the >> stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after >> a lot of >> >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from >> what he is >> >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>> K >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement >> and >> >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global >> human rights >> >>>>>> impact of this issue. >> >>>>>> ____________________________________ >> >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >> >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >> >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >> >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >> >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >> >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >> >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >> >>>>>> letter. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> C >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < >> joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi folks, >> >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >> >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the >> Freedom >> >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >> >>>>>>> best >> >>>>>>> joana >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Kevin, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space >> to >> >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of >> authority ? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> C >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < >> kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >> >>>>>>>>> questions. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >> >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act >> was an >> >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not >> a separate >> >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is >> no statute >> >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >> >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence >> and terrorism >> >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside >> the United >> >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the >> United >> >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the >> extent it >> >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized >> permanent >> >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter >> authority which is >> >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going >> through the FISA >> >>>>>>>>> Court. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of >> non-Americans >> >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) >> non-Americans >> >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the >> US, 3) >> >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the >> US. >> >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to >> the extent >> >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of >> non-Americans outside >> >>>>>>>>> of America. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >> >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual >> wiretaps >> >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, >> III with pen >> >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of >> metadata), IV >> >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders >> since it was >> >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, >> Subchapter >> >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided >> the new and >> >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders >> authorizing >> >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications >> where at >> >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, >> while also >> >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >> >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is >> the authority >> >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand >> it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these >> laws--and >> >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact >> the privacy >> >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks >> and services, >> >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance >> of >> >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to >> accomplish >> >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> Kevin >> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >> >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >> >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >> >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >> >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >> >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >> >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >> >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it >> today. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be >> happy >> >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send >> tomorrow or >> >>>>>>>>> Friday. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >> >>>>>>>>> questions. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> M >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >> >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] >> On >> >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >> >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >> >>>>>>>>> Congress to >> >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. >> Will >> >>>>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >> >>>>>>>>> Foundation >> >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >> >>>>>>>>> letter >> >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That >> >>>>>>>>> letter >> >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >> >>>>>>>>> Council, >> >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy >> International >> >>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >> >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC >> and I >> >>>>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >> >>>>>>>>> improvements: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >> >>>>>>>>> URL) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >> >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently >> >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we >> centralise on >> >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >> >>>>>>>>> others, you >> >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> >>>>>>>>> Google Groups >> >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >>>>>>>>> send an >> >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >> >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> >>>>>>>>> south africa >> >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >> >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >> >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >> >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google >> >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out >> . >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >> >>>>>>> @joana_varon >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >> >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >> >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >> >>>>>> @carolinarossini >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >> >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >>>>> skype: carolrossini >> >>>>> @carolinarossini >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >> >>>> @joana_varon >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> *Carolina Rossini* >> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >>> + 1 6176979389 >> >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >>> skype: carolrossini >> >>> @carolinarossini >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >> >> @joana_varon >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** >> ** ** >> >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- * Katherine Maher Director, Strategy & Engagement Access | AccessNow.org Skype: krmaher | Twitter: @krmaher PGP: 0x471ACE0D * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Jun 12 15:45:06 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:45:06 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> Dear all I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others from the Global South to sign on to it. Kevin I am happy with your language as well. What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being crudely anti-US. Who is doing the next clean draft? I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. Anriette On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Gene and all, > > As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I > think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a > point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. > > This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, > but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with > the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative > perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an > agenda already set for us. > > I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think > carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to > provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think > there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is > desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a > discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet > freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political > reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such > non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a > sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement > acceptable to all. > > And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the > whistle-blowers issue, by the way. > > Thanks and best regards, > Anja > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 6 06:25:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:55:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: <0000013f18fc5cb7-c3268bd6-6744-4186-b4c2-f39c1cdad018-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> <0000013f18fc5cb7-c3268bd6-6744-4186-b4c2-f39c1cdad018-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <51B06393.4050407@itforchange.net> On Thursday 06 June 2013 03:45 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I wouldn't be willing to make that assumption, personally. Why not ask > them what they meant? I, personally, suspect they did not intend it to > be limited in the way you suggest, but neither of us really knows for > sure. Dear Nick, I am going by what has been described as an 'anatel blog'. in any case written by a senior official of anatel. So, it is really not an 'assumption', right!... parminder > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 11:32, parminder > wrote: > >> Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just >> the ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of >> Internet governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet >> governance. This is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the >> present set up.... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Wed Jun 12 16:01:11 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:01:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> Message-ID: <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I stuck it in the Pad (along with CDT's name as a signer). On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of > complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others > from the Global South to sign on to it. > > Kevin I am happy with your language as well. > > What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will > encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being > crudely anti-US. > > Who is doing the next clean draft? > > I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. > > Anriette > > On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear Gene and all, >> >> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I >> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a >> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. >> >> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, >> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with >> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative >> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an >> agenda already set for us. >> >> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think >> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to >> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think >> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is >> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a >> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet >> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political >> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such >> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a >> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement >> acceptable to all. >> >> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the >> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> Anja >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From joy at apc.org Wed Jun 12 16:08:04 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:08:04 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B8D524.1010604@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi - can I check who is holding the pen on this draft at the moment? i am avialable to help but don't want to do anything as i am not sure where the drafting got to overnight.... checking back on the emails now - but please let me know if you need help Joy On 13/06/2013 8:01 a.m., Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I stuck it in the Pad (along with CDT's name as a signer). > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of >> complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others >> from the Global South to sign on to it. >> >> Kevin I am happy with your language as well. >> >> What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will >> encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being >> crudely anti-US. >> >> Who is doing the next clean draft? >> >> I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear Gene and all, >>> >>> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I >>> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a >>> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. >>> >>> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, >>> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with >>> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative >>> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an >>> agenda already set for us. >>> >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think >>> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to >>> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think >>> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is >>> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a >>> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet >>> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political >>> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such >>> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a >>> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement >>> acceptable to all. >>> >>> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the >>> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNUkAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqCYcIAK5Sy1Z6zBV4FOTYIPwy4G5v nEtLh9/Pkl5arqkUzpFsOYqr8zLE+epvy9eY9lrsXeEZgsPmPFgHeF8Ce8E/Pn0E VoNF/3WiUG3V0RlmZ6w7rwEcmadX5t4/6nbgkcUSTnbfWPLcsU5jKyjnSOZhkLbe wE72F42oyJOW2XvybwKr8eH4bTL/Kjc95qjY5X4bz32TAxrNdpKTdD5cZOyJAcNP RCtrJAiO7tQSAhQoBooQIK0Sj3cBOP0UV6U99fPvZ76rCRaCQCmiZ+CZMl6gyCNk tHv+e/1FOGZtBkJBMegSEmlZfVzHnj4ZHjNyfO3EO9BOjRe5MKWLicmOise6H0E= =OELq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wongc at hrw.org Wed Jun 12 16:08:31 2013 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:08:31 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all: Thanks, all, for a very fruitful discussion. It is hard to find the end of the various email threads, so I will weigh in here. A couple of suggestions: 1) For the asks in the final paragraph, it may be useful to identify the specific actors that would be best placed to take those actions forward. So for example: We therefore urge that **the Obama administration and the US Congress act immediately to** dismantle and prevent the creation now and in the future of a global Internet and telecomunications based surveillance system. **The Administration / FBI and Attorney General should allow** involved or affected companies to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive. 2) In addition, there is some fear that Congress has not shown enough courage (being polite with my language here) to exercise real oversight over these programs to prevent abuse of power. As a result, many groups (including HRW, independent of the various joint letters) are calling for an independent panel/committee to investigate whether the agencies have breached the Constitution and/or human rights. That might be an additional ask to consider. Here are examples of the formulation of those asks: * HRW: Given concern about the vigor of congressional oversight, Human Rights Watch urged the creation of an independent panel with subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections for rights to privacy, free expression, and association. * Stop Watching Us letter: Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying. This committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance The Stop Watching Us letter also asks for accountability for those public officials responsible for the programs, which may also be worth considering: "Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance." Thanks, Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:45 PM To: Anja Kovacs Cc: Gene Kimmelman; Kevin Bankston; Cynthia Wong; Ginger Paque; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Dear all I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others from the Global South to sign on to it. Kevin I am happy with your language as well. What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being crudely anti-US. Who is doing the next clean draft? I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. Anriette On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Gene and all, > > As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil > society, I think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't > think there is a point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. > > This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in > isolation, but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, > including with the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to > convey alternative perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than > simply feeding into an agenda already set for us. > > I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think > carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so > as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But > I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this > statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, > we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use > the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole > range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that > term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into > account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make > for a strong statement acceptable to all. > > And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the > whistle-blowers issue, by the way. > > Thanks and best regards, > Anja > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From joy at apc.org Wed Jun 12 16:18:04 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:18:04 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B8D77C.8000005@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Ginger - just to answer your question on law in other countries: yes there are quite a few with such protection - ironically including some of those under surveillance - New Zealand has whistleblower laws for example that include disclosures of wrong doing by public authorities: https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/legislations/406/68-home-office-leaker#DLM2035939 an interesting question (whch i have not had time to look at) is whether snowden for exmaple would have been protected under NZ law if he had made the revelations about NZ government activity in passing on information (or the UK etc) Joy On 13/06/2013 5:06 a.m., Ginger Paque wrote: > There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley Manning/Wikileaks) > > Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or corporate fraud. > > Do other countries besides the USA offer protections? > > gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > /*The latest from Diplo...*/ //Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. //Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses// > > *//* > > > On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >> > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >> protection, isnt it? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > wrote: > >> > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually > >>> public interest. > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else > >>> would work in this case. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________ > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>> > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>> > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list > >>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big > >>>>>> comment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> K > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>> letter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> C > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon >wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA > >>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com >] On > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com ; > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > >> @joana_varon > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNd8AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqwI4IAJe5YP3MlLXU3mqaHP1k6a65 1/Fil6zd88WlrBx2/Fs/gGc6N+FokUW8zTatoNfDc5chi766BxArUZfv65wWoHtg wTaDdm9rbGHK911tT47MEVho6ppinMR4JK1jbGKsCu3YVFCsGn8/68HB9Xpdkewt 06IYhBTaBcvDSV2ZUu2Pmq80WgCjksCb8NxzuiOdrCGM5sFaJocv5ME/KVZgGzwi W8Zr7CZLJrtWjHGqfdNZBw2y7sKoqgDi2sWplfS/bq9AVqbMQgsuwBGKoJWPp3pd GNUPoa8ghNtBeDtQ1HACAfdPbyWhVculTsO/onQ03a4vvLeTljWj5FOp1T7t6dQ= =1jOI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jun 12 16:27:51 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:27:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Message-ID: Hi all, I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as it's looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. I'm hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this week because Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the farm bill. Plus delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we want media attention. How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? Then as Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online Coalition meeting in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would need contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in mind? A number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already have this information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to work with one of the more international groups with a DC presence on delivery. Amnesty International and HRW come to mind, but there are probably others. What do others think? Best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:31:50 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:31:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] clean version available Message-ID: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:32:40 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:32:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under normal conditions, I agree w/everything you said. Given the thirst for material on this mess, I wouldn't worry too much about sending it Friday, it should get coverage regardless. The fact that the Senate is considering the Immigration bill shouldn't matter, the hook is that such a broad group is seeking legislation (different reporters covering these issues; and immigration will be pending for the next month). At the same time, it is perfectly fine to wait until Monday! On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as it's > looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. > > Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. I'm > hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this week because > Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the farm bill. Plus > delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we want media attention. > > How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? Then as > Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online Coalition meeting > in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. > > If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would need > contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in mind? A > number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already have this > information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to work with one of > the more international groups with a DC presence on delivery. Amnesty > International and HRW come to mind, but there are probably others. What do > others think? > > Best, > Deborah > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:36:30 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:36:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8D524.1010604@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> <51B8D524.1010604@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Joy, I just finished cleaning it up, but have kept the marked version just below the clean one. Cynthia, feel free to edit the document directly with your suggestions. http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here I also have tried to incorporate Cynthia's suggestions. C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > hi - can I check who is holding the pen on this draft at the moment? i > am avialable to help but don't want to do anything as i am not sure > where the drafting got to overnight.... > checking back on the emails now - but please let me know if you need help > Joy > On 13/06/2013 8:01 a.m., Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I > stuck it in the Pad (along with > CDT's name as a signer). > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of > >> complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others > >> from the Global South to sign on to it. > >> > >> Kevin I am happy with your language as well. > >> > >> What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will > >> encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being > >> crudely anti-US. > >> > >> Who is doing the next clean draft? > >> > >> I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> Dear Gene and all, > >>> > >>> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil > society, I > >>> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a > >>> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. > >>> > >>> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in > isolation, > >>> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including > with > >>> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey > alternative > >>> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into > an > >>> agenda already set for us. > >>> > >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think > >>> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, > so as to > >>> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I > do think > >>> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement > is > >>> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had > a > >>> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet > >>> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly > political > >>> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such > >>> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure > a > >>> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement > >>> acceptable to all. > >>> > >>> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the > >>> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. > >>> > >>> Thanks and best regards, > >>> Anja > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >> executive director, association for progressive communications > >> www.apc.org > >> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >> south africa > >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >> > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNUkAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqCYcIAK5Sy1Z6zBV4FOTYIPwy4G5v > nEtLh9/Pkl5arqkUzpFsOYqr8zLE+epvy9eY9lrsXeEZgsPmPFgHeF8Ce8E/Pn0E > VoNF/3WiUG3V0RlmZ6w7rwEcmadX5t4/6nbgkcUSTnbfWPLcsU5jKyjnSOZhkLbe > wE72F42oyJOW2XvybwKr8eH4bTL/Kjc95qjY5X4bz32TAxrNdpKTdD5cZOyJAcNP > RCtrJAiO7tQSAhQoBooQIK0Sj3cBOP0UV6U99fPvZ76rCRaCQCmiZ+CZMl6gyCNk > tHv+e/1FOGZtBkJBMegSEmlZfVzHnj4ZHjNyfO3EO9BOjRe5MKWLicmOise6H0E= > =OELq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wongc at hrw.org Wed Jun 12 17:37:27 2013 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:37:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> <51B8D524.1010604@apc.org> Message-ID: One more suggestion from me, which I hesitate to add directly into the document since it is a question of self-identification. It would be useful to have a short description at the beginning of the letter that describes the kinds of organizations on the list, beyond the umbrella "civil society organizations." I realize this may be difficult depending on the diversity of sign-ons. However, for example, it may be valuable to explain that many/some/all of the undersigned groups work to defend and promote human rights and access to an open Internet all around the world, or something similar. I only suggest this because this letter may go to members of congress that won't have an understanding of the work that this community does. It also helps to underscore that the USG's programs have implications far beyond the narrow set of civil liberties that are usually the center of policy debates in the US. Thanks, Cynthia From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:37 PM To: joy at apc.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Hi Joy, I just finished cleaning it up, but have kept the marked version just below the clean one. Cynthia, feel free to edit the document directly with your suggestions. http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here I also have tried to incorporate Cynthia's suggestions. C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, joy > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi - can I check who is holding the pen on this draft at the moment? i am avialable to help but don't want to do anything as i am not sure where the drafting got to overnight.... checking back on the emails now - but please let me know if you need help Joy On 13/06/2013 8:01 a.m., Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I stuck it in the Pad (along with CDT's name as a signer). > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of >> complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others >> from the Global South to sign on to it. >> >> Kevin I am happy with your language as well. >> >> What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will >> encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being >> crudely anti-US. >> >> Who is doing the next clean draft? >> >> I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear Gene and all, >>> >>> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I >>> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a >>> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. >>> >>> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, >>> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with >>> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative >>> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an >>> agenda already set for us. >>> >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think >>> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to >>> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think >>> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is >>> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a >>> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet >>> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political >>> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such >>> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a >>> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement >>> acceptable to all. >>> >>> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the >>> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNUkAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqCYcIAK5Sy1Z6zBV4FOTYIPwy4G5v nEtLh9/Pkl5arqkUzpFsOYqr8zLE+epvy9eY9lrsXeEZgsPmPFgHeF8Ce8E/Pn0E VoNF/3WiUG3V0RlmZ6w7rwEcmadX5t4/6nbgkcUSTnbfWPLcsU5jKyjnSOZhkLbe wE72F42oyJOW2XvybwKr8eH4bTL/Kjc95qjY5X4bz32TAxrNdpKTdD5cZOyJAcNP RCtrJAiO7tQSAhQoBooQIK0Sj3cBOP0UV6U99fPvZ76rCRaCQCmiZ+CZMl6gyCNk tHv+e/1FOGZtBkJBMegSEmlZfVzHnj4ZHjNyfO3EO9BOjRe5MKWLicmOise6H0E= =OELq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 17:40:14 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:40:14 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B8D77C.8000005@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <51B8D77C.8000005@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Joy.... this is a complex situation in so many ways.... gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 12 June 2013 15:18, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Ginger - just to answer your question on law in other countries: yes > there are quite a few with such protection - ironically including some of > those under surveillance - New Zealand has whistleblower laws for example > that include disclosures of wrong doing by public authorities: > > https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/legislations/406/68-home-office-leaker#DLM2035939 > an interesting question (whch i have not had time to look at) is whether > snowden for exmaple would have been protected under NZ law if he had made > the revelations about NZ government activity in passing on information (or > the UK etc) > Joy > > > On 13/06/2013 5:06 a.m., Ginger Paque wrote: > > There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but > this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular > whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is > further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and > possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley > Manning/Wikileaks) > > > > Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing > or corporate fraud. > > > > Do other countries besides the USA offer protections? > > > > gp > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > > > /*The latest from Diplo...*/ //Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. //Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses// > > > > *//* > > > > > > On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me > round > > the bend. > > > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations > to. > > > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > > > anriette > > > > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > > > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out > and > > > leave the last part of the final paragraph: > > > > > > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > > > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to > combat > > > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > > > and foreign citizens.[9]" > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com > > wrote: > > > > > >> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > > >> > > >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we > support his > > >> protection, isnt it? > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the > international > > >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a > certain > > >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > > >>> public interest. > > >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe > anything else > > >>> would work in this case. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org >wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the > HRC, where > > >>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing > US > > >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who > are > > >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > > >>>> as a clear violation of the law. > > >>>> > > >>>> ____________________________________ > > >>>> Kevin S. Bankston > > >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > > >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > > >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > > >>>> Washington, DC 20006 > > >>>> 202.407.8834 direct > > >>>> 202.637.0968 fax > > >>>> kbankston at cdt.org > > >>>> > > >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > >>>> > > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > > >>>> > > >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about > the future > > >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I > mean, the guy > > >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting > him is also > > >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on > our Statement > > >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our > statement to > > >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > > >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org >wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new > one... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Kevin > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > > >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so > adding that list > > >>>>>> back into cc. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and > one big > > >>>>>> comment. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The tweaks: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global > reach also > > >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to > "participating". I am > > >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > > >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court > approval (for the > > >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against > AT&T and the NSA > > >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we > know now the > > >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret > *order* of the > > >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those > orders we > > >>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the > "complicity" brush. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > > >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they > are forbidden > > >>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow > them to do so. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > > >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous > distraction from the > > >>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > > >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract > from what he is > > >>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> K > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC > statement and > > >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the > global human rights > > >>>>>> impact of this issue. > > >>>>>> ____________________________________ > > >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > > >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > > >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > > >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > > >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > > >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > > >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > > >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > > >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi all > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on > the > > >>>>>> letter. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> C > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com > >wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi folks, > > >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > > >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the > Freedom > > >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > > >>>>>>> best > > >>>>>>> joana > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Kevin, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is > space to > > >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching > of authority ? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> C > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org >wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > > >>>>>>>>> questions. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA > is a > > >>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT > Act was an > > >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for > records; not a separate > > >>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there > is no statute > > >>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that > I can > > >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign > intelligence and terrorism > > >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted > inside the United > > >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside > the United > > >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to > the extent it > > >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and > naturalized permanent > > >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter > authority which is > > >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going > through the FISA > > >>>>>>>>> Court. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of > non-Americans > > >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, > 2) non-Americans > > >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in > the US, 3) > > >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in > the US. > > >>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans > to the extent > > >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > > >>>>>>>>> of America. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US > Code: > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > > >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical > searches, III with pen > > >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > > >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 > orders since it was > > >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). > Meanwhile, Subchapter > > >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in > 2008--provided the new and > > >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > > >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of > communications where at > > >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the > country, while also > > >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception > of any > > >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that > is the authority > > >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best > understand it. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > > >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY > impact the privacy > > >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications > networks and services, > > >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the > assistance of > > >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort > to accomplish > > >>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been > doing! > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>>>> Kevin > > >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > > >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > > >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > > >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > > >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > > >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > > >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > > >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > > >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org > > wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it > today. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would > be happy > > >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to > send tomorrow or > > >>>>>>>>> Friday. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > > >>>>>>>>> questions. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> M > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com > [ > > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com > < > webwewant at googlegroups.com >] > On > > >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com > ; > > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society > letter to > > >>>>>>>>> Congress to > > >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some > comments. Will > > >>>>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Anriette > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > > >>>>>>>>> Foundation > > >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil > society > > >>>>>>>>> letter > > >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. > That > > >>>>>>>>> letter > > >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human > Rights > > >>>>>>>>> Council, > > >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy > International > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and > suggested > > >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from > APC and I > > >>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > > >>>>>>>>> improvements: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the > dumb > > >>>>>>>>> URL) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to > avoid > > >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > > >>>>>>>>> inadvertently > > >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we > centralise on > > >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join > at > > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > > >>>>>>>>> others, you > > >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > the > > >>>>>>>>> Google Groups > > >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, > > >>>>>>>>> send an > > >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive > communications > > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > > >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > > >>>>>>>>> south africa > > >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > the Google > > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, > > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > the Google > > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, > > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > > >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > > >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > > >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > > >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > > >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, > > >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > > >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > > >>>>> + 1 6176979389 > > >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > > >>>>> skype: carolrossini > > >>>>> @carolinarossini > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > >>>> @joana_varon > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> *Carolina Rossini* > > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > > >>> + 1 6176979389 > > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > > >>> skype: carolrossini > > >>> @carolinarossini > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > >> @joana_varon > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNd8AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqwI4IAJe5YP3MlLXU3mqaHP1k6a65 > 1/Fil6zd88WlrBx2/Fs/gGc6N+FokUW8zTatoNfDc5chi766BxArUZfv65wWoHtg > wTaDdm9rbGHK911tT47MEVho6ppinMR4JK1jbGKsCu3YVFCsGn8/68HB9Xpdkewt > 06IYhBTaBcvDSV2ZUu2Pmq80WgCjksCb8NxzuiOdrCGM5sFaJocv5ME/KVZgGzwi > W8Zr7CZLJrtWjHGqfdNZBw2y7sKoqgDi2sWplfS/bq9AVqbMQgsuwBGKoJWPp3pd > GNUPoa8ghNtBeDtQ1HACAfdPbyWhVculTsO/onQ03a4vvLeTljWj5FOp1T7t6dQ= > =1jOI > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Jun 6 06:51:23 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:51:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: <51B06393.4050407@itforchange.net> References: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> <0000013f18fc5cb7-c3268bd6-6744-4186-b4c2-f39c1cdad018-000000@email.amazonses.com> <51B06393.4050407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: As I said, I don't think your assumption is necessarily the only reasonable interpretation of the blog. I think I will stop here, I don't really care to argue about what a third party may or may not have meant - but if you really do, I suggest you just ask the Brazilians. Entirely your choice. On 6 Jun 2013 12:25, "parminder" wrote: > > On Thursday 06 June 2013 03:45 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > I wouldn't be willing to make that assumption, personally. Why not ask > them what they meant? I, personally, suspect they did not intend it to be > limited in the way you suggest, but neither of us really knows for sure. > > > Dear Nick, I am going by what has been described as an 'anatel blog'. in > any case written by a senior official of anatel. So, it is really not an > 'assumption', right!... parminder > > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 11:32, parminder wrote: > > Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just the > ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of Internet > governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet governance. This > is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the present set up.... > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 12 18:27:46 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:27:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Spies Without Borders: Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <51B8D77C.8000005@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B8F5E2.8060505@eff.org> We launched our Spies Without Borders posts looking into how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect the international community. More coming soon. Spies Without Borders I: Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spies-without-borders-i-using-domestic-networks-spy-world From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 12 18:31:57 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:31:57 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Spies Without Borders : Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World. In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B8F6DD.8060307@eff.org> Greetings all, I'm pleased to share our Spies Without Borders series of posts looking into how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect the international community. Spies Without Borders : Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC) and Katitza Rodriguez (EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spies-without-borders-i-using-domestic-networks-spy-world From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 12 15:47:24 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:47:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement acceptable to all. i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent political meme. so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet might be a good idea. avri From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 19:34:46 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:34:46 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement acceptable to all. > > i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent political meme. > so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet might be a good idea. +1. I have been saying the same thing for a while (https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM scandal has cemented this. The Best Bits website says "Internet governance and Internet rights". Neither of those are perfect either. The disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it means naming and numbering. The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jun 12 20:55:57 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:55:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks a lot for all the efforts to reach a balance on all this. +1 about the points on the terminology raised by Anja, Anriette, Avri and Jeremy +1 for Kevin suggestions on whistleblower +1 for the additions made by Cynthia on the requests to be made to US Congress +1 about thinking in a more specific way to identify our organizations (Will something like this be enough? "civil society organizations focused on the implications of internet policies in the exercise of fundamental human rights" ... dont know if "internet policies" is enough though) Thanks Joy for the clarifications on NZ whistleblower.. looking forward from APC news on what to do in a broader sense regarding this complicated issue. all the best joana On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think > carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to > provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think > there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is > desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a > discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet > freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political > reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such > non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a > sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement > acceptable to all. > > > i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent > political meme. > so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet > might be a good idea. > > > +1. I have been saying the same thing for a while ( > https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM > scandal has cemented this. The Best Bits website says "Internet governance > and Internet rights". Neither of those are perfect either. The > disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it > means naming and numbering. The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that > (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 22:20:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:20:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi all I just saw that the version I cleaned around 4:40pmEST already has a bunch of new edits. Should we set a time limit to close editions? How would you all like to proceed? http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here Carol On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks a lot for all the efforts to reach a balance on all this. > > +1 about the points on the terminology raised by Anja, Anriette, Avri and > Jeremy > > +1 for Kevin suggestions on whistleblower > > +1 for the additions made by Cynthia on the requests to be made to US > Congress > > +1 about thinking in a more specific way to identify our organizations > (Will something like this be enough? "civil society organizations focused > on the implications of internet policies in the exercise of fundamental > human rights" ... dont know if "internet policies" is enough though) > > Thanks Joy for the clarifications on NZ whistleblower.. looking forward > from APC news on what to do in a broader sense regarding this complicated > issue. > > all the best > > joana > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think >> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to >> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think >> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is >> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a >> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet >> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political >> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such >> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a >> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement >> acceptable to all. >> >> >> i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent >> political meme. >> so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet >> might be a good idea. >> >> >> +1. I have been saying the same thing for a while ( >> https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM >> scandal has cemented this. The Best Bits website says "Internet governance >> and Internet rights". Neither of those are perfect either. The >> disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it >> means naming and numbering. The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that >> (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 22:22:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:52:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> Hi All Sorry, have been behind on this and could not follow closely due to some pre occupations.... Did not suspect we have such a close deadline for delivery. I thought we had time.... I am unable to respond right now but have some comments which I can make only later in the day... Can we wait a day or two.... But pl go ahead if it is urgent... Two things bother me about the statement 1. While I am not against addressing it to the US gov normally, I have been appalled that in all the post PRISM clarifications, everything has eclusively been about protecting US citizens' interests, and saying that they would not do such a thing to US citizens (meaning very clearly that non US citizens are a very different matter). Not a word has been uttered about the rights of non US citizens, even when the worst transgressions have been made against them. I resent such an attitude of US gov, which makes me think whether I want to address it at all on this issue.. And even if addressed, this point has to be foregrounded. Especially the hypocrisy of all the speak of "global Internet community' when the issue is critical Internet resources oversight, and that category of thought completely disappearing when real Internet governance issues come up need to be highlighted. 2. I am unable to understand why are we so soft on the involved companies. I need to know more why they did what they did and how, and why they could not be more transparent to their global customers.... In India here most people feel a deep breach of trust.... I am not at all convinced that they are entirely clean on this, and they told us all that they legally could. Do we write a seperate letter to them.... In fact, my view is, we write a general statement on the issue, not addressed to anyone, which covers both US govs's and these companies' culpabilities, or at least asks the needed probing questions from the latter. I have many such questions. parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 01:57 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as it's > looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. > > Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. > I'm hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this week > because Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the farm > bill. Plus delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we want media > attention. > > How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? Then > as Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online Coalition > meeting in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. > > If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would > need contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in > mind? A number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already > have this information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to work > with one of the more international groups with a DC presence on > delivery. Amnesty International and HRW come to mind, but there are > probably others. What do others think? > > Best, > Deborah > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Wed Jun 12 22:26:37 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:26:37 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B92DDD.5090708@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks Joana .. also +1 on the terminology - thanks Anja for raising it. Jeremy: I would have thought that ["internet rights" are human rights] is an advantage, rather than disadvantage, since "human rights" encompasses some of the wider reasons why some at least work in this area (per Anja's comments). Joy On 13/06/2013 12:55 p.m., Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks a lot for all the efforts to reach a balance on all this. > > +1 about the points on the terminology raised by Anja, Anriette, Avri and Jeremy > > +1 for Kevin suggestions on whistleblower > > +1 for the additions made by Cynthia on the requests to be made to US Congress > > +1 about thinking in a more specific way to identify our organizations (Will something like this be enough? "civil society organizations focused on the implications of internet policies in the exercise of fundamental human rights" ... dont know if "internet policies" is enough though) > > Thanks Joy for the clarifications on NZ whistleblower.. looking forward from APC news on what to do in a broader sense regarding this complicated issue. > > all the best > > joana > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement acceptable to all. >> >> i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent political meme. >> so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet might be a good idea. > > +1. I have been saying the same thing for a while (https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM scandal has cemented this. The Best Bits website says "Internet governance and Internet rights". Neither of those are perfect either. The disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it means naming and numbering. The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuS3dAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqr7kIAI2l15JqJdIs1j/vlD2mjpW+ hlnaGXBZCPX7Y09J2m4Ur8kukIKn/FuakuSz1gCj3/heSA1qQ74oR35Ks776YDRo 8HOtpCnGlHDpXsMk7GxnsAKJrYtoJuxvHRuGgyM1sUvKXcuEoTJd3oCoGG++XumZ EmPrwhNER6U72//Qxcsi+dvm2p9wD+rELAPqU8ZJI6M+wuLaFkwjTdnU8Lo25IbV TBGsUw2Jjjnqk6ANGWaGT78+w8DsxOeZYEWlvtNmOBz+7UnnOu23hyP+5AnjUmoM E1eSQNn70Kg5Hiiv7ur2wHRXSQtLXT7m3R+PqZYkicYseepzsybTah6E6Xeofsk= =LGSJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 12 22:38:31 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:31 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B930A7.4030709@ciroap.org> On 13/06/13 10:20, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hi all > > I just saw that the version I cleaned around 4:40pmEST already has a > bunch of new edits. > > Should we set a time limit to close editions? How would you all like > to proceed? I had suggested we close the text at noon GMT today (Thursday). Is that still fine with everyone? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 22:44:57 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:44:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> On Parminder's second point, about the companies, I wonder if we should just ask all companies that engage in internet commerce to abide by the same human rights principles we're asking governments to follow; and in addition ask these companies with a presence in the U.S. to support the same changes in law we're proposing? On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:22 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Sorry, have been behind on this and could not follow closely due to some pre occupations.... Did not suspect we have such a close deadline for delivery. I thought we had time.... I am unable to respond right now but have some comments which I can make only later in the day... Can we wait a day or two.... But pl go ahead if it is urgent... > > Two things bother me about the statement > > 1. While I am not against addressing it to the US gov normally, I have been appalled that in all the post PRISM clarifications, everything has eclusively been about protecting US citizens' interests, and saying that they would not do such a thing to US citizens (meaning very clearly that non US citizens are a very different matter). Not a word has been uttered about the rights of non US citizens, even when the worst transgressions have been made against them. I resent such an attitude of US gov, which makes me think whether I want to address it at all on this issue.. And even if addressed, this point has to be foregrounded. Especially the hypocrisy of all the speak of "global Internet community' when the issue is critical Internet resources oversight, and that category of thought completely disappearing when real Internet governance issues come up need to be highlighted. > > 2. I am unable to understand why are we so soft on the involved companies. I need to know more why they did what they did and how, and why they could not be more transparent to their global customers.... In India here most people feel a deep breach of trust.... I am not at all convinced that they are entirely clean on this, and they told us all that they legally could. Do we write a seperate letter to them.... In fact, my view is, we write a general statement on the issue, not addressed to anyone, which covers both US govs's and these companies' culpabilities, or at least asks the needed probing questions from the latter. I have many such questions. > > parminder > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 01:57 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as it's looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. >> >> Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. I'm hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this week because Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the farm bill. Plus delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we want media attention. >> >> How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? Then as Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online Coalition meeting in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. >> >> If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would need contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in mind? A number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already have this information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to work with one of the more international groups with a DC presence on delivery. Amnesty International and HRW come to mind, but there are probably others. What do others think? >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jun 6 06:56:01 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:56:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> References: <51B0573C.8080603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Maybe it's worth to mention some political/conceptual differences in the Brazilian national scenario that might be reflected in different possible interpretations about the actual text: - Daniel, the author of the text, is the representative from Anatel, our regulatory agency with mandate to represent Brazil at ITU. Anatel was responsible for drafting the first (terrible) version of the opinion on the role of States (which, among other provisions, mentioned ITU as a multistakeholder organization). My view, that could be controversial, is that for Anatel, there is an interest in both: enforcing the role of States and the role of ITU on Internet Governance, particularly because it will be reflected in it's role in the national scenario, vis a vis, CGI.br. With that approach, more clearly reflected in the previous draft, Russia was sympathetic with the Brazilian proposal, formally expressing it's support. Nevertheless, I dont think the reasons for Anatel (aka Brazil) are the same as the ones for Russia. As I've mentioned, there is this sympathy from the part of Anatel, but there is also openness for debate and for making them more aware of the processes from other foruns were Internet Governance is the center of debate and proper multistakeholderism practices have been implemented. That was clear then Benedito, the Embassador that has been following IGF and all the debates on IG, was the one who presented the proposal in plenary properly, did so focusing on capacity building, in a way that wasn't written in the previously proposed text. That approach got massive support of developing countries, which, just as civil society, have been strugling to follow IG agenda. I believe that the latest version of the text, expresses that view. So, nothing is black or white at the moment. I guess we should use gray areas to share constructive views of all theses processes. Tomorrow there will be a talk with anatel and interested stakeholders about WTPF and preparation for ITU Council next week. I'll suggest that they start to establish the practice of meeting international civil society representatives (just like US has been doing), at ITU meetings related to Internet Governance. As I believe we could bring them inputs from the logic and debates in other foruns. I hope they at least start to think about it. The hard part of Anatel is that its under the Ministry of Communications, and about the Ministry I cannot say good things or have higher hopes. I also hope you find it usefull, and if so, helping to finnish the draft statement for opening CWG-Internet is also crucial. All the best Joana On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM, parminder wrote: > > The article confirms my view that in proposing this opinion draft, Brazil meant only the ICANN plus system of technical governance of the Internet (also called management of critical Internet resources) in which the way to 'operationalise' the role governments was sought to be explored. On the other hand, the excitement among civil society around this 'opinion' comes from taking it to mean the entire gamut of Internet governance. Before any progress can be made on this 'issue' it is important to match 'definitions'. > > I suspect that civil society is 'mistakenly' getting excited about this opinion; this is about improving government influence on ICANN system. It is not about the entire global Internet governance. > > I think the 'opinion' proposal came from the telecom/ anatel side of Brazilian government which is overly influenced/ taken by a definition of 'Internet governance' promoted by the ITU - whereby it is considered to cover only what 'ICANN plus' system does . (Remember, the famous ITU's assertions that WCIT is not about Internet governance, or that the ITU has no interest to get into internet governance). We all know that this is contrary to definition of Internet governance articulated by WGIG, which is the way IG is understood in the mainstream. > > Note, the unfortunate wrong usage of the term Internet governance as only meaning the ICANN system in the article below: > "Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. …... The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. " > > Does this leave anyone in any doubt whatsoever that Brazil meant just the ICANN system by its phrase 'Multistakeholder framework of Internet governance', and *not* the entire realm of global Internet governance. This is about GAC and governments' unhappiness with the present set up.... > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 05 June 2013 08:13 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Thought this might be of interest to the list. >> >> http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ >> >> OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE >> >> June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13 >> The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet Governance. >> >> Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. >> >> The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of governments in existing international Internet Governance fora. >> >> In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. >> >> Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. >> >> During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. >> >> The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. >> >> The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14). >> >> Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. >> >> >> By Daniel B. Cavalcanti >> >> Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues. >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 22:59:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:29:04 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> Again, I am running for a day long meeting and wont be able to contribute for the next many hours.. So, Jeremy, can we have another day, but dont want to delay any deadline imperative, so do go ahead if that is difficult.... But I think this is an important statement and thus important to get right... On Gene's point - asking companies to support changes in law is fine -- but I also have a lot of questions and issues to address them about what already happened - and so have the people I talk to - and I think we need to write to them separately too, unless, we are just writing an open statement - which I prefer - which covers both US and these compaines issues... parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 08:14 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > On Parminder's second point, about the companies, I wonder if we > should just ask all companies that engage in internet commerce to > abide by the same human rights principles we're asking governments to > follow; and in addition ask these companies with a presence in the > U.S. to support the same changes in law we're proposing? > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:22 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> Sorry, have been behind on this and could not follow closely due to >> some pre occupations.... Did not suspect we have such a close >> deadline for delivery. I thought we had time.... I am unable to >> respond right now but have some comments which I can make only later >> in the day... Can we wait a day or two.... But pl go ahead if it is >> urgent... >> >> Two things bother me about the statement >> >> 1. While I am not against addressing it to the US gov normally, I >> have been appalled that in all the post PRISM clarifications, >> everything has eclusively been about protecting US citizens' >> interests, and saying that they would not do such a thing to US >> citizens (meaning very clearly that non US citizens are a very >> different matter). Not a word has been uttered about the rights of >> non US citizens, even when the worst transgressions have been made >> against them. I resent such an attitude of US gov, which makes me >> think whether I want to address it at all on this issue.. And even if >> addressed, this point has to be foregrounded. Especially the >> hypocrisy of all the speak of "global Internet community' when the >> issue is critical Internet resources oversight, and that category of >> thought completely disappearing when real Internet governance issues >> come up need to be highlighted. >> >> 2. I am unable to understand why are we so soft on the involved >> companies. I need to know more why they did what they did and how, >> and why they could not be more transparent to their global >> customers.... In India here most people feel a deep breach of >> trust.... I am not at all convinced that they are entirely clean on >> this, and they told us all that they legally could. Do we write a >> seperate letter to them.... In fact, my view is, we write a general >> statement on the issue, not addressed to anyone, which covers both US >> govs's and these companies' culpabilities, or at least asks the >> needed probing questions from the latter. I have many such questions. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 01:57 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as >>> it's looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. >>> >>> Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. >>> I'm hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this >>> week because Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the >>> farm bill. Plus delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we >>> want media attention. >>> >>> How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? >>> Then as Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online >>> Coalition meeting in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. >>> >>> If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would >>> need contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in >>> mind? A number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already >>> have this information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to >>> work with one of the more international groups with a DC presence on >>> delivery. Amnesty International and HRW come to mind, but there are >>> probably others. What do others think? >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jun 13 00:42:12 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:42:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Just a quick note to follow up on the proposal to open CWG-Internet. I've also followed up with a few governments, who have said that they will try to cite our proposal and recommendations when the issue comes up. I'm told that this issue may be discussed on Thursday, so it would be great if others are able do additional outreach to governments. Will let you know if I hear anything more. Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Deborah. > I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. > I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. > Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) > cheers > joana > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and >> asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the >> session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it >> with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. >> >> Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of >> the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email >> you should have received, for it to appear on the website. >> >> Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < >> amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque >>> >>>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >>>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >>>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >>>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>>> >>>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>> >>>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>>> ** >>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. >>>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>>>> next 15 minutes or so? >>>>> >>>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>>>> pressed environment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Deborah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>>>> >>>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>>>> please, do so: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>> >>>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is >>>>>>>> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.*Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed >>>>>>>> by email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>> @deblebrown >>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 02:05:50 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:05:50 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9613E.9020407@apc.org> Dear Deborah Which governments have been covered already? Aside from Brazil which Joana contacted. I can try and send some emails around this morning. Anriette On 13/06/2013 06:42, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a quick note to follow up on the proposal to open CWG-Internet. I've > also followed up with a few governments, who have said that they will try > to cite our proposal and recommendations when the issue comes up. I'm told > that this issue may be discussed on Thursday, so it would be great if > others are able do additional outreach to governments. Will let you know if > I hear anything more. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Thanks, Deborah. >> I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. >> I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. >> Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) >> cheers >> joana >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and >>> asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the >>> session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it >>> with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. >>> >>> Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>> >>> Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of >>> the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email >>> you should have received, for it to appear on the website. >>> >>> Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < >>> amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque >>>> >>>>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >>>>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >>>>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >>>>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>>>> >>>>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >>>>> >>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>>> >>>>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>>>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>>>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>>>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>>>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>>>> ** >>>>> ** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. >>>>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>>>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>>>>> next 15 minutes or so? >>>>>> >>>>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>>>>> pressed environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>>>>> please, do so: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is >>>>>>>>> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.*Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed >>>>>>>>> by email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 02:13:57 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:13:57 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> On 13/06/13 10:59, parminder wrote: > Again, I am running for a day long meeting and wont be able to > contribute for the next many hours.. So, Jeremy, can we have another > day, but dont want to delay any deadline imperative, so do go ahead if > that is difficult.... Would others object to postponing the finalisation of the text until tomorrow/Friday? > On Gene's point - asking companies to support changes in law is fine > -- but I also have a lot of questions and issues to address them > about what already happened - and so have the people I talk to - and I > think we need to write to them separately too, unless, we are just > writing an open statement - which I prefer - which covers both US and > these compaines issues... Personally I wouldn't want to take the heat off the government in this statement. There will be more questions for the companies involved to answer, but first things first, and the US government is ultimately responsible and accountable for those companies' actions. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 04:51:41 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 04:51:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone Content is coming along well. Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. Will this work? Anriette On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= =ssiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 05:07:55 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:07:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi people I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. Best of the day.. Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Greetings everyone > > Content is coming along well. > > Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > > That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. > > Will this work? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy > B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR > pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn > u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 > GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN > LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= > =ssiT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antiropy at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 05:20:37 2013 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:20:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Korean translation of CS statement to HRC Message-ID: Hello, I'm Oh Byoungil from Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', which is a member of APC. We also support the CS statement to HRC on PRISM and translate it into Korean encouraging Korean civil society to sign on this statement. http://act.jinbo.net/drupal/node/7565 As I know, this statement was already read in the HRC on 10, June. right? I wonder how was the response to the statement and which action would be expected in the future in the HRC. Best Regards, Oh Byoungil -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 05:38:48 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:38:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <7547E286-FA40-478E-A68D-5EBEF142A80C@cdt.org> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACD4F0@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> I am still getting up to speed this morning on how the drafting is going; Anja's points below following others about needing to be clear that including a comment on whistleblowers and also being sure to address the US congress in such a way that makes sense to that audience (which is Kevin's point if I remember many responses back!) need not adopt a position that underscores a US-centric understanding. As this issue emanates from the US, addressing US representatives is primary. But as Anja notes, internet freedom is not only a US prerogative. Looking forward to the final 'clean' version so that IRP coalition members can confer and sign up if this is the decision. Thanks all again for the work! MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: 12 June 2013 18:06 To: Kevin Bankston Cc: anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I agree with Joana and Anriette that a reference to at least our own concern and support for whistleblowers should stay in. Unless we want to write a whole separate statement on that (which is perhaps worth considering, seeing the USA's recent record on this count). I also support the changes suggested by Joana which ensure we do no longer address the USA as a "global leader on Internet freedom" while still pointing out how the USA is hurting its own credibility with these revelations. Neither do I consider the USA a leader in this field, nor does the Internet Democracy Project associate with the term "Internet freedom" to describe its field of work - and I think we might not be alone in this. Many thanks to all who have been working on this. Best, Anja On 12 June 2013 22:20, Kevin Bankston > wrote: I'm afraid not Sent via mobile On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > the bend. > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > anriette > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: >> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and >> leave the last part of the final paragraph: >> >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat >> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American >> and foreign citizens.[9]" >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: >> >>> "So we need others to protect him from US.." >>> >>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his >>> protection, isnt it? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international >>>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain >>>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually >>>> public interest. >>>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else >>>> would work in this case. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>>> >>>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where >>>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US >>>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are >>>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did >>>>> as a clear violation of the law. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I've mentioned in the document: >>>>> >>>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future >>>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy >>>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also >>>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement >>>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to >>>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists >>>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list >>>>>>> back into cc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big >>>>>>> comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tweaks: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also >>>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am >>>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation >>>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the >>>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA >>>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the >>>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the >>>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we >>>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics" >>>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden >>>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph >>>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the >>>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of >>>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is >>>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> K >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and >>>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights >>>>>>> impact of this issue. >>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the >>>>>>> letter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon >wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. >>>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom >>>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to >>>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> C >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a >>>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an >>>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate >>>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute >>>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can >>>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism >>>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United >>>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United >>>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it >>>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent >>>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is >>>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA >>>>>>>>>> Court. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans >>>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans >>>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3) >>>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US. >>>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent >>>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside >>>>>>>>>> of America. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps >>>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen >>>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV >>>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was >>>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter >>>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and >>>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing >>>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at >>>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also >>>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any >>>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority >>>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and >>>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy >>>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services, >>>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of >>>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish >>>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Kevin >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy >>>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or >>>>>>>>>> Friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's >>>>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ >>>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com >] On >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; >>>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to >>>>>>>>>> Congress to >>>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement >>>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web >>>>>>>>>> Foundation >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society >>>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That >>>>>>>>>> letter >>>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights >>>>>>>>>> Council, >>>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested >>>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and >>>>>>>>>> improvements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb >>>>>>>>>> URL) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid >>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened >>>>>>>>>> inadvertently >>>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on >>>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in >>>>>>>>>> others, you >>>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an >>>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 05:53:35 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:53:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> <51B8D524.1010604@apc.org> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACD56B@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> +1 from me as these identifiers are important for anyone looking in; civil society is a large rubric! Best MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Cynthia Wong Sent: 12 June 2013 22:37 To: Carolina Rossini; joy at apc.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement One more suggestion from me, which I hesitate to add directly into the document since it is a question of self-identification. It would be useful to have a short description at the beginning of the letter that describes the kinds of organizations on the list, beyond the umbrella "civil society organizations." I realize this may be difficult depending on the diversity of sign-ons. However, for example, it may be valuable to explain that many/some/all of the undersigned groups work to defend and promote human rights and access to an open Internet all around the world, or something similar. I only suggest this because this letter may go to members of congress that won't have an understanding of the work that this community does. It also helps to underscore that the USG's programs have implications far beyond the narrow set of civil liberties that are usually the center of policy debates in the US. Thanks, Cynthia From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:37 PM To: joy at apc.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Hi Joy, I just finished cleaning it up, but have kept the marked version just below the clean one. Cynthia, feel free to edit the document directly with your suggestions. http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here I also have tried to incorporate Cynthia's suggestions. C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, joy > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi - can I check who is holding the pen on this draft at the moment? i am avialable to help but don't want to do anything as i am not sure where the drafting got to overnight.... checking back on the emails now - but please let me know if you need help Joy On 13/06/2013 8:01 a.m., Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I stuck it in the Pad (along with CDT's name as a signer). > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of >> complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others >> from the Global South to sign on to it. >> >> Kevin I am happy with your language as well. >> >> What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will >> encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being >> crudely anti-US. >> >> Who is doing the next clean draft? >> >> I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear Gene and all, >>> >>> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil society, I >>> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a >>> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. >>> >>> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in isolation, >>> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with >>> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey alternative >>> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an >>> agenda already set for us. >>> >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think >>> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to >>> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think >>> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is >>> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a >>> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet >>> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political >>> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such >>> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a >>> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement >>> acceptable to all. >>> >>> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the >>> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNUkAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqCYcIAK5Sy1Z6zBV4FOTYIPwy4G5v nEtLh9/Pkl5arqkUzpFsOYqr8zLE+epvy9eY9lrsXeEZgsPmPFgHeF8Ce8E/Pn0E VoNF/3WiUG3V0RlmZ6w7rwEcmadX5t4/6nbgkcUSTnbfWPLcsU5jKyjnSOZhkLbe wE72F42oyJOW2XvybwKr8eH4bTL/Kjc95qjY5X4bz32TAxrNdpKTdD5cZOyJAcNP RCtrJAiO7tQSAhQoBooQIK0Sj3cBOP0UV6U99fPvZ76rCRaCQCmiZ+CZMl6gyCNk tHv+e/1FOGZtBkJBMegSEmlZfVzHnj4ZHjNyfO3EO9BOjRe5MKWLicmOise6H0E= =OELq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Jun 13 06:24:34 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:24:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B9613E.9020407@apc.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B9613E.9020407@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi I'm seeing someone from the US delegation to Council Sunday here in Geneva. If there are particular discussion/action points people think it'd be useful to raise please let me know. Unfortunately I'm swamped with NCUC @ Durban, end of semester grading, etc. so I haven't been able to follow this discussion closely or read the available docs yet, will try. Thanks Bill On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Deborah > > Which governments have been covered already? Aside from Brazil which > Joana contacted. > > I can try and send some emails around this morning. > > Anriette > > On 13/06/2013 06:42, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Just a quick note to follow up on the proposal to open CWG-Internet. I've >> also followed up with a few governments, who have said that they will try >> to cite our proposal and recommendations when the issue comes up. I'm told >> that this issue may be discussed on Thursday, so it would be great if >> others are able do additional outreach to governments. Will let you know if >> I hear anything more. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Deborah. >>> I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. >>> I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. >>> Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) >>> cheers >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and >>>> asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the >>>> session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it >>>> with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. >>>> >>>> Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>> >>>> Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of >>>> the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email >>>> you should have received, for it to appear on the website. >>>> >>>> Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < >>>> amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Ginger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque >>>>> >>>>>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >>>>>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >>>>>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >>>>>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>>>> >>>>>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>>>>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>>>>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>>>>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>>>>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>>>>> ** >>>>>> ** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. >>>>>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>>>>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>>>>>> next 15 minutes or so? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>>>>>> pressed environment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Deborah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>>>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>>>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>>>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>>>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>>>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>>>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>>>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>>>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>>>>>> please, do so: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>>>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>>>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>>>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is >>>>>>>>>> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.*Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed >>>>>>>>>> by email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 3 03:00:40 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:00:40 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet Message-ID: Dear all, Good morning. As we have mentioned in the previous thread at best bits list on IGF and the Brazilian proposal on the role of States at WTPF, last Friday Deborah and I started a draft statement on a proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues. Please, find the link bellow: https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing We have followed the structure proposed by Nnenna and have tried to address comments made in the tread. But this is just a first draft, please, feel free to add your comments, edits, ideas and so on. Everybody is more then welcome to edit the text and we particularly need more inputs on the final part of it, about suggestions for recommendations on how to maximize meaningful civil society participation. Also, adapting Deborah's first proposal of timeline, we believe we should comply with the following dates, so we can deliver it to the ITU by the beginning of ITU Council 2013: - Preliminary draft text open for edits: 2 May- 6 June - Finalize text for sign on: 7 June - Send text to the SG/ITU and publish it: June 11 (beginning of ITU Council 2013) We hope it suits you all. Have a lovely beginning of the week. All the best, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Jun 7 08:43:37 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:43:37 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU Message-ID: Dear all, Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public Policy Issues. Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and adopted all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at the working document. I hope you are happy with it As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help us to upload the text? Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? All the best Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------- Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to the work of CWG-Internet. Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. We note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary 2014. We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet (which, we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their functions. But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a meaningful civil society participation. In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved upon. - Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before the final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG with a civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in these contexts has no external means of financial support. - Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU were not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a truly inclusive process. - Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. - It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more participation from all stakeholders around the world. In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: - Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. - Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official documents for consideration. - Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 06:33:23 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:33:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B9613E.9020407@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B99FF3.6030505@apc.org> Dear Bill I think what would be really useful is to ask this person to let us know if the letter has been circulated to CWG members or not. We need to know it is actually reaching its target group and that it is not being held up by the chair or the secretariat. Anriette On 13/06/2013 06:24, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I'm seeing someone from the US delegation to Council Sunday here in Geneva. If there are particular discussion/action points people think it'd be useful to raise please let me know. Unfortunately I'm swamped with NCUC @ Durban, end of semester grading, etc. so I haven't been able to follow this discussion closely or read the available docs yet, will try. > > Thanks > > Bill > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Deborah >> >> Which governments have been covered already? Aside from Brazil which >> Joana contacted. >> >> I can try and send some emails around this morning. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 13/06/2013 06:42, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just a quick note to follow up on the proposal to open CWG-Internet. I've >>> also followed up with a few governments, who have said that they will try >>> to cite our proposal and recommendations when the issue comes up. I'm told >>> that this issue may be discussed on Thursday, so it would be great if >>> others are able do additional outreach to governments. Will let you know if >>> I hear anything more. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Deborah. >>>> I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. >>>> I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. >>>> Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) >>>> cheers >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) and >>>>> asked it to be included as an information document for consideration at the >>>>> session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and share it >>>>> with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the ITU. >>>>> >>>>> Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the body of >>>>> the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an email >>>>> you should have received, for it to appear on the website. >>>>> >>>>> Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Deborah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < >>>>> amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque >>>>>> >>>>>>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon Colombiana >>>>>>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is >>>>>>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>>>>>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>>>>>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>>>>>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>>>>>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>>>>>> ** >>>>>>> ** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the ITU. >>>>>>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? >>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their >>>>>>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse it in the >>>>>>>> next 15 minutes or so? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less time >>>>>>>> pressed environment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Deborah >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to >>>>>>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF outcomes >>>>>>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little difference >>>>>>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if these >>>>>>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a role in key IG >>>>>>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the 'Internet >>>>>>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or split.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our >>>>>>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. >>>>>>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, >>>>>>>>> please, do so: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important >>>>>>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let >>>>>>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous >>>>>>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >>>>>>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >>>>>>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is >>>>>>>>>>> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.*Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements >>>>>>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best >>>>>>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you >>>>>>>>>>> help us to upload the text? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed >>>>>>>>>>> by email, please do so on the site too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 06:50:26 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:50:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B92DDD.5090708@apc.org> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B92DDD.5090708@apc.org> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACD5F0@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> HI +1 about how human rights and principles for the internet/internet rights are human rights are integral to these struggles; locally, nationally and globally! Best MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of joy Sent: 13 June 2013 03:27 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks Joana .. also +1 on the terminology - thanks Anja for raising it. Jeremy: I would have thought that ["internet rights" are human rights] is an advantage, rather than disadvantage, since "human rights" encompasses some of the wider reasons why some at least work in this area (per Anja's comments). Joy On 13/06/2013 12:55 p.m., Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks a lot for all the efforts to reach a balance on all this. > > +1 about the points on the terminology raised by Anja, Anriette, Avri and Jeremy > > +1 for Kevin suggestions on whistleblower > > +1 for the additions made by Cynthia on the requests to be made to US Congress > > +1 about thinking in a more specific way to identify our organizations (Will something like this be enough? "civil society organizations focused on the implications of internet policies in the exercise of fundamental human rights" ... dont know if "internet policies" is enough though) > > Thanks Joy for the clarifications on NZ whistleblower.. looking forward from APC news on what to do in a broader sense regarding this complicated issue. > > all the best > > joana > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement acceptable to all. >> >> i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent political meme. >> so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet might be a good idea. > > +1. I have been saying the same thing for a while (https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM scandal has cemented this. The Best Bits website says "Internet governance and Internet rights". Neither of those are perfect either. The disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it means naming and numbering. The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuS3dAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqr7kIAI2l15JqJdIs1j/vlD2mjpW+ hlnaGXBZCPX7Y09J2m4Ur8kukIKn/FuakuSz1gCj3/heSA1qQ74oR35Ks776YDRo 8HOtpCnGlHDpXsMk7GxnsAKJrYtoJuxvHRuGgyM1sUvKXcuEoTJd3oCoGG++XumZ EmPrwhNER6U72//Qxcsi+dvm2p9wD+rELAPqU8ZJI6M+wuLaFkwjTdnU8Lo25IbV TBGsUw2Jjjnqk6ANGWaGT78+w8DsxOeZYEWlvtNmOBz+7UnnOu23hyP+5AnjUmoM E1eSQNn70Kg5Hiiv7ur2wHRXSQtLXT7m3R+PqZYkicYseepzsybTah6E6Xeofsk= =LGSJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Jun 13 06:58:47 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:28:47 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi people > > I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you > will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > overshadow any other Internet news... > > I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as > some that have been made by Best Bits. > > Best of the day.. > > Nnenna > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Jun 13 07:41:44 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:11:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> Message-ID: Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this > tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others > and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow > is a better idea. > > > > On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Hi people >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >> Best of the day.. >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Greetings everyone >>> >>> Content is coming along well. >>> >>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>> >>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>> Americas. >>> >>> Will this work? >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> >>> - -- >>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>> =ssiT >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jun 13 07:46:36 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:46:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <51B99FF3.6030505@apc.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> <51B5D7B1.7090409@itforchange.net> <51B9613E.9020407@apc.org> <51B99FF3.6030505@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Bill, I've only managed to send the proposal to Sweden and the US. So further outreach would definitely be welcome. Also, does anyone have an email address for Cătălin Marinescu, who was appointed Chair of ITU Council 2013? I sent it to the general address and to a few people in the Secretariat, but couldn't find the Chair's direct email address. Best, Deborah On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Bill > > I think what would be really useful is to ask this person to let us know > if the letter has been circulated to CWG members or not. We need to know > it is actually reaching its target group and that it is not being held > up by the chair or the secretariat. > > Anriette > > On 13/06/2013 06:24, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'm seeing someone from the US delegation to Council Sunday here in > Geneva. If there are particular discussion/action points people think it'd > be useful to raise please let me know. Unfortunately I'm swamped with NCUC > @ Durban, end of semester grading, etc. so I haven't been able to follow > this discussion closely or read the available docs yet, will try. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bill > > > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > >> Dear Deborah > >> > >> Which governments have been covered already? Aside from Brazil which > >> Joana contacted. > >> > >> I can try and send some emails around this morning. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 06:42, Deborah Brown wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Just a quick note to follow up on the proposal to open CWG-Internet. > I've > >>> also followed up with a few governments, who have said that they will > try > >>> to cite our proposal and recommendations when the issue comes up. I'm > told > >>> that this issue may be discussed on Thursday, so it would be great if > >>> others are able do additional outreach to governments. Will let you > know if > >>> I hear anything more. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Deborah > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks, Deborah. > >>>> I've just sent it to the Brazilian Government. > >>>> I'll let you know if there is any important follow up. > >>>> Ow, today was definitely CS Statement's day :) > >>>> cheers > >>>> joana > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Deborah Brown >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, I just sent the statement to the ITU (SG's office and comms) > and > >>>>> asked it to be included as an information document for consideration > at the > >>>>> session. Please feel free to spread this among your networks and > share it > >>>>> with governments. I will let you know if I get a response from the > ITU. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Parminder, I put IT for Change in the list of signatories in the > body of > >>>>> the email, but you still need to confirm your endorsement through an > email > >>>>> you should have received, for it to appear on the website. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is anyone actually in Geneva and able to monitor the Council's work? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Deborah > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez < > >>>>> amedinagomez at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Ginger > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2013/6/10 Ginger Paque > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Antonio Medina has told me that he signed as the Asociacioon > Colombiana > >>>>>>> de usuarios de Internet, and yesterday appeared on the list. He is > >>>>>>> concerned because the signature no longer appears at > >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you please check? Thanks. gp > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >>>>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > >>>>>>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet > Governance > >>>>>>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, > ICT Policy > >>>>>>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. > Read > >>>>>>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > >>>>>>> ** > >>>>>>> ** > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10 June 2013 08:54, Deborah Brown > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you Parminder. I'm about to send the statement off to the > ITU. > >>>>>>>> Can you endorse the statement on the Best Bits statement here? > >>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Can anyone else who would like to sign on and have their > >>>>>>>> organization/name included in the version sent to the ITU endorse > it in the > >>>>>>>> next 15 minutes or so? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Would be happy to continue the point you raised in a little less > time > >>>>>>>> pressed environment. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Deborah > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IT for Change supports the statement.... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> However, independent of the above statement, I am not able to > >>>>>>>>> understand the reason why so many of those who welcome the WTPF > outcomes > >>>>>>>>> were against the Internet resolution 3 of WCIT... I see little > difference > >>>>>>>>> between the two. Will be obliged if someone can explain. Why if > these > >>>>>>>>> organisations are welcoming these opinions, which give ITU a > role in key IG > >>>>>>>>> issues. and also especially opinion 6 that is so close to the > 'Internet > >>>>>>>>> resolution' of the WCIT, did they support the WCIT meltdown or > split.. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> parminder > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 07:55 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our > >>>>>>>>> statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. > >>>>>>>>> This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on > yet, > >>>>>>>>> please, do so: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important > >>>>>>>>> statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we > shall not let > >>>>>>>>> recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine > previous > >>>>>>>>> efforts on other inter-related topics.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Kind regards > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joana > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have > already > >>>>>>>>>> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their > email address > >>>>>>>>>> once they receive an email from the platform. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm < > jeremy at ciroap.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is > >>>>>>>>>>> short, *we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, > 10th.*Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements > >>>>>>>>>>> through this list while we take the time to submit the text at > the Best > >>>>>>>>>>> Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with > this? Can you > >>>>>>>>>>> help us to upload the text? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you > endorsed > >>>>>>>>>>> by email, please do so on the site too. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 10:08:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:38:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to /US citizens/, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " I stillhaveissues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. "The introduction ofuntargetedsurveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. /*These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies*//*.*/[3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized throughample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from > the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the > US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does > foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant > to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that > doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > > > On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release > this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with > Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to > know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. > > > > On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Hi people > > I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with > it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that > will overshadow any other Internet news... > > I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in > Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to > the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. > > Best of the day.. > > Nnenna > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Greetings everyone > > Content is coming along well. > > Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving > people until > 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the > text, finalise it, > and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 > GMT/UTC Friday for > sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the > business day > in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > > That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still > enable us to get > enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on > Friday. Only > region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will > be the Americas. > > Will this work? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - > http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy > B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR > pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn > u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 > GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN > LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= > =ssiT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 10:16:26 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:16:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder wrote: > > The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the > fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at > all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to > consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is > a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on > the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain > from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The > current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of > this. " > > > I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I > will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them > separately, through a possible second statement. > > Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > right. > > "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of > global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental > shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies**.*[3] and > aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > > What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but > that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > other two sentences... > > > parminder > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the > beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground > the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at > all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > > > On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>> Hi people >>> >>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>> >>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>> >>> Best of the day.. >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> Greetings everyone >>>> >>>> Content is coming along well. >>>> >>>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >>>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >>>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >>>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>> >>>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>>> Americas. >>>> >>>> Will this work? >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> - -- >>>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <%2B27%2011%20726%201692> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>>> =ssiT >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 10:18:54 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:18:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Message-ID: <4447iifofgcnoee04ir1p5xg.1371133134167@email.android.com> I agree with Parminder' s suggested paragragh with one friendly amendment: instead of stating these actions are human rights violations,  I suggest "almost certainly human rights violations. " Rather than an absolute assertion,  it may be wise to give them a chance to at least offer a defense,  if they can. -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible).  I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been  a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " I  still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... parminder   On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Hi people I will say  submit on Monday.  When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week.  I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. Best of the day.. Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone Content is coming along well. Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. Will this work? Anriette On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= =ssiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 10:32:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:32:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> I can take a look for style and grammar. Just alert me when there is a "finalized" text. I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder wrote: The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Hi people I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. Best of the day.. Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone Content is coming along well. Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. Will this work? Anriette On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= =ssiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Thu Jun 13 10:51:34 2013 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:51:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Sign ons to the International Civil Society Letter to Congress Message-ID: All: Would this letter be open to sign on from US groups? If yes, Public Knowledge is considering signing on. Thank you. Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:22:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:22:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk Message-ID: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. M From: DAVID FARBER [mailto:dfarber at me.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:10 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1 NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal Prism A slide depicting the top-secret PRISM program The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says. The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program. In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data." Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a programme. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said. An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM. The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012. Prism The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US. It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants. Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers. The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata. Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan "Your privacy is our priority" – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007. It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online. Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. Prism The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies. Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users' communications under US law, but the PRISM program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers. The NSA document notes the operations have "assistance of communications providers in the US". The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces. When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more. PRISM slide crop The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy. The PRISM program allows the NSA, the world's largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders. With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users. The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US. "Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States . There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all." The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines "electronic surveillance" to exclude anyone "reasonably believed" to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance. The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities' requests. In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA. The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming "access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning". In the document, the NSA hails the PRISM program as "one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA". It boasts of what it calls "strong growth" in its use of the PRISM program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was "exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype". There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google. The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to "expand collection services from existing providers". The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired. Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working. "The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don't know how well any of these safeguards actually work," he said. "The law doesn't forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can't say and average Americans can't know." Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program. When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a "report". According to the NSA, "over 2,000 PRISM-based reports" are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year. In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data. "It's shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this," he said. "The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications. "This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That's profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation." Additional reporting by James Ball and Dominic Rushe Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg| Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25641 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9908 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 813 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 858 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:06:47 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:06:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights Message-ID: Hi all, Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the following principles:* *II – protecting privacy;* *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right of access to the Internet.* *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved.* *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be required to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* * * *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the standards set forth by regulation.* * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. Thank you, Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MCI_INGLES (update).doc Type: application/msword Size: 115200 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Jun 13 11:16:57 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:46:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). Thanks, Anja On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a > "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in > until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM > *To:* parminder > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter > to Congress to follow up from HRC statement**** > > ** ** > > I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. **** > > ** ** > > I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.**** > > ** ** > > Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native > english speaker take the lead on the final round. **** > > ** ** > > Carol**** > > ** ** > > **** > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > wrote:**** > > > The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the > fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at > all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to > consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......**** > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is > a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on > the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain > from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The > current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of > this. "**** > > > I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will > address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, > through a possible second statement. > > Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > right. **** > > "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of > global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental > shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and > aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."**** > > What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but > that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > other two sentences... > > > parminder > > **** > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the > beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground > the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at > all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....**** > > ** ** > > On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** > > Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this > tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others > and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow > is a better idea. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:**** > > Hi people**** > > I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you > will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..**** > > I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > overshadow any other Internet news...**** > > I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as > some that have been made by Best Bits.**** > > Best of the day..**** > > Nnenna**** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote:**** > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Greetings everyone > > Content is coming along well. > > Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > > That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. > > Will this work? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy > B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR > pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn > u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 > GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN > LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= > =ssiT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in**** > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > *Carolina Rossini* **** > > http://carolinarossini.net/**** > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com***** > > skype: carolrossini**** > > @carolinarossini**** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 11:19:29 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:19:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9E301.5020609@apc.org> Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, HRW... correct? For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. Best Anriette On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > > I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > > Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native > english speaker take the lead on the final round. > > Carol > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. " >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies**.*[3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >>> is a better idea. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>> >>>> Hi people >>>> >>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>> >>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>> >>>> Best of the day.. >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Greetings everyone > > Content is coming along well. > > Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > > That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the > Americas. > > Will this work? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:20:31 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:20:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ok, I will check how the text is and include parminder's suggestion (p.s. all lists copied...so sorry for those who are in all of them - like me - since you will get multiple emails...) On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original > form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we > should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has > indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a >> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in >> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> M**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter >> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Carol**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> wrote:**** >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......**** >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. "**** >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. **** >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."**** >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> **** >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:**** >> >> Hi people**** >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..**** >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news...**** >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits.**** >> >> Best of the day..**** >> >> Nnenna**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote:**** >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in**** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Carolina Rossini* **** >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/**** >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com***** >> >> skype: carolrossini**** >> >> @carolinarossini**** >> >> ** ** >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 11:27:35 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:27:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9E301.5020609@apc.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <51B9E301.5020609@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B9E4E7.8010503@apc.org> Dear all Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts his day tomorrow? Anriette On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > HRW... correct? > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > wrote: >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > not at >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>> >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which is >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > refrain >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > note of >>> this. " >>> >>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >>> right. >>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > societies**.*[3] and >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > power, but >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >>> other two sentences... >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>> >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > others >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > tomorrow >>>> is a better idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > well as >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:41:05 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:41:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Timeline - International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Message-ID: I agree on timeline. Here details on it: 11:40amEST, Thursday - Carol cleaning it up 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with final clean up 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) Makes sense? On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a > while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC > time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we > would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday > so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday > morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to > have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. > > Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you > have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts > his day tomorrow? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > > HRW... correct? > > > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed > here: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > > > Best > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > >> > >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > >> > >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a > native > >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about > the > >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > > not at > >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group > to > >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > >>> > >>> > >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on > the > >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > > which is > >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities > on > >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > > refrain > >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. > The > >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > > note of > >>> this. " > >>> > >>> > >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I > >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them > >>> separately, through a possible second statement. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > >>> right. > >>> > >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart > of > >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect > fundamental > >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > > societies**.*[3] and > >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens > by > >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > >>> > >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > > power, but > >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > >>> other two sentences... > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from > the > >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does > foreground > >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out > at > >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release > this > >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > > others > >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > > tomorrow > >>>> is a better idea. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi people > >>>>> > >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, > you > >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > > well as > >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best of the day.. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone > >> > >> Content is coming along well. > >> > >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > >> > >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the > >> Americas. > >> > >> Will this work? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>> > >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 13 11:52:15 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:52:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Korean translation of CS statement to HRC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B9EAAF.1090901@apc.org> Dear Oh Byoungil Thanks a lot for doing this! Yes, you are correct. The statement you translated was presented as an oral statement in the HRC under agenda item 8 on Monday 10 June. We are planning to follow up in the HRC, and with HRC members. Will you be able to send it to the Korean HR commission and to relevant people in government? Can you also be on standby to translate the new letter we are preparing? It will be from international CS organisations addressed to the US gov. It should be ready sometime tomorrow. I have just posted a draft to apc.forum and you can view it here and contribute: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here Cheers Anriette On 13/06/2013 11:20, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > Hello, > > I'm Oh Byoungil from Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', which is a > member of APC. > > We also support the CS statement to HRC on PRISM and translate it into > Korean encouraging Korean civil society to sign on this statement. > http://act.jinbo.net/drupal/node/7565 > > As I know, this statement was already read in the HRC on 10, June. right? > I wonder how was the response to the statement and which action would be > expected in the future in the HRC. > > Best Regards, > Oh Byoungil > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:58:58 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:58:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9E4E7.8010503@apc.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <51B9E301.5020609@apc.org> <51B9E4E7.8010503@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi people +1 To Parminder's addition. However, may I request a slight change to the last sentence: from "The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " TO: "We strongly advocate that current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into due consideration" Best Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a > while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC > time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we > would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday > so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday > morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to > have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. > > Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you > have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts > his day tomorrow? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > > HRW... correct? > > > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed > here: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > > > Best > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > >> > >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > >> > >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a > native > >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about > the > >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > > not at > >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group > to > >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > >>> > >>> > >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on > the > >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > > which is > >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities > on > >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > > refrain > >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. > The > >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > > note of > >>> this. " > >>> > >>> > >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I > >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them > >>> separately, through a possible second statement. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > >>> right. > >>> > >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart > of > >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect > fundamental > >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > > societies**.*[3] and > >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens > by > >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > >>> > >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > > power, but > >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > >>> other two sentences... > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from > the > >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does > foreground > >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out > at > >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release > this > >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > > others > >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > > tomorrow > >>>> is a better idea. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi people > >>>>> > >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, > you > >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > > well as > >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best of the day.. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone > >> > >> Content is coming along well. > >> > >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > >> > >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the > >> Americas. > >> > >> Will this work? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>> > >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Thu Jun 13 12:00:58 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:00:58 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9ECBA.2020603@softwarefreedom.org> Hello everyone, My name is Mishi Choudhary and I am the executive director of SFLC.in, a not for profit society working that works to advance technology policy that supports political freedom and personal privacy, based in New Delhi, India. I have been a silent observer for a few months on this list but am pitching in on one point. I strongly agree with Parminder about addressing the companies involved as the importance of PRISM is that it shows everyone on earth that if they store personal data in centralized services and communicate through such centralized "platforms", sooner or later governments will greedily spy on us all. If people want to protect freedom, they have to demand and use technology that also protects freedom. The defensive , onus shifting strategy, atleast the three major companies have adopted seem too late , too little and more an eyewash for now. Thanks everyone who is involved in this commendable effort. SFLC.in will be signing the resultant statement . On 06/12/2013 10:22 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Sorry, have been behind on this and could not follow closely due to > some pre occupations.... Did not suspect we have such a close deadline > for delivery. I thought we had time.... I am unable to respond right > now but have some comments which I can make only later in the day... > Can we wait a day or two.... But pl go ahead if it is urgent... > > Two things bother me about the statement > > 1. While I am not against addressing it to the US gov normally, I have > been appalled that in all the post PRISM clarifications, everything > has eclusively been about protecting US citizens' interests, and > saying that they would not do such a thing to US citizens (meaning > very clearly that non US citizens are a very different matter). Not a > word has been uttered about the rights of non US citizens, even when > the worst transgressions have been made against them. I resent such an > attitude of US gov, which makes me think whether I want to address it > at all on this issue.. And even if addressed, this point has to be > foregrounded. Especially the hypocrisy of all the speak of "global > Internet community' when the issue is critical Internet resources > oversight, and that category of thought completely disappearing when > real Internet governance issues come up need to be highlighted. > > 2. I am unable to understand why are we so soft on the involved > companies. I need to know more why they did what they did and how, and > why they could not be more transparent to their global customers.... > In India here most people feel a deep breach of trust.... I am not at > all convinced that they are entirely clean on this, and they told us > all that they legally could. Do we write a seperate letter to them.... > In fact, my view is, we write a general statement on the issue, not > addressed to anyone, which covers both US govs's and these companies' > culpabilities, or at least asks the needed probing questions from the > latter. I have many such questions. > > parminder > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 01:57 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted start a separate thread on delivery of the statement, as >> it's looking like we're getting close to finalizing the text. >> >> Jeremy set a deadline of noon GMT on Thursday for edits, I believe. >> I'm hearing that it would not be wise to deliver the letter this week >> because Congress is consumed with immigration reform and the farm >> bill. Plus delivering it on Friday would not be ideal if we want >> media attention. >> >> How do others feel about aiming for a Monday or Tuesday delivery? >> Then as Joana mentioned, those who will be at the Freedom Online >> Coalition meeting in Tunis can deliver it to officials there as well. >> >> If the plan is to deliver this to all members of Congress, we would >> need contact information for all offices. Is that what others had in >> mind? A number of groups that regularly do DC-based advocacy already >> have this information, so perhaps it would make the most sense to >> work with one of the more international groups with a DC presence on >> delivery. Amnesty International and HRW come to mind, but there are >> probably others. What do others think? >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Director-International Practice 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 12:04:14 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:04:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM > To: parminder > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > > > I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > > > > I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > > > > Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. > > > > Carol > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder wrote: > > > The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " > > > I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. > > Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. > > "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > > What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... > > > parminder > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > > > > On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. > > > > > > On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Hi people > > I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > > I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... > > I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. > > Best of the day.. > > Nnenna > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Greetings everyone > > Content is coming along well. > > Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > > That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. > > Will this work? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy > B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR > pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn > u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 > GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN > LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= > =ssiT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:08:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:08:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> McTim, As I was very careful to point out in my initial blogposts on this re: the WCIT, the issue is not "hands off the Internet" but rather whose hands off (or on) and for what purposes. There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too important and pervasive for there not to be--and anyone surprised by the revelations from the Guardian article isn't living in the real world. The question is whether there are structures of accountability, responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of economic, political or technical authority/power. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? Doesn't this news (yet to be clarified BTW, see link below) mean that we should push for more hands-offyness, rather than less? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/internet-companies-deny-prism_n_339 9841.html?ref=topbar I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. am for the former, not the latter. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 13 12:06:09 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:06:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> Message-ID: I think Kevin's suggested change is sensible - I would rather underclaim than overclaim on this.. Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston Sent: 13 June 2013 17:04 To: Anja Kovacs Cc: michael gurstein; Carolina Rossini; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). Thanks, Anja On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein > wrote: I can take a look for style and grammar... Just alert me when there is a "finalized" text... I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > wrote: The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > wrote: Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: Hi people I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. Best of the day.. Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone Content is coming along well. Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. Will this work? Anriette On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= =ssiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 12:14:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:44:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will justify my comment in a short while... parminder Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to > add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily > wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and > policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights > implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens > Human Rights Internationally": > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally > > However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the > various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), > because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its > reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news > outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* > how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA > Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or > how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, > which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we > suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the > disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or > inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would > be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't > know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons > content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, > no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US > citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to > your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. > So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest > disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on > assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been > respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government > surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging > to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must > refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its > citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and > practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its >> original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been >> violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to >> decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). >> >> Thanks, >> Anja >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there >> is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't >> likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or >> tomorrow morning. >> >> M >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] *On Behalf Of >> *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society >> letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was >> lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be >> better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> Carol >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned >> about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content >> surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. >> They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily >> defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the >> following paragraph somewhere...... >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post >> 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that >> there was no access obtained to content related to /US citizens/, >> and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has >> not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content >> related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human >> rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference >> between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue >> which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government >> must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely >> for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on >> this matter should take note of this. " >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, >> which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to >> address them separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not >> quite right. >> >> "The introduction ofuntargeted surveillance mechanisms at the >> heart of global digital communications severely threatens human >> rights in the digital age. */These new forms of decentralized >> power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information >> systems in modern societies./* [3] and aAny step in this >> direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >> citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? >> From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of >> people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the >> sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had >> agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular >> statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread >> it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US >> citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as >> well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should >> release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to >> agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but >> would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > > wrote: >> >> Hi people >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week >> with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention >> on it.. >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that >> will overshadow any other Internet news... >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in >> Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to >> the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >> Best of the day.. >> >> Nnenna >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving >> people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, >> finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC >> Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the >> business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable >> us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on >> Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be >> the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:24:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:24:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ivar, I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a negative right, but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A positive right is a right that has been affirmed by statute, so in law or in a constitution of some kind, and opens the door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it gives us more control over our data. However, if you have a better language, you and any other person, should feel free to suggest. We still have time to improve. I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to consolidate suggestions and deliver to him. C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > Carolina, > > Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are > better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I > don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. > *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of privacy > as a negative right alone*. > That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe > all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in > the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the > Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. > Best regards, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with >> you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco >> Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian >> Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative >> Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so >> it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in >> other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. >> Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries >> due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been >> incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and >> the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil >> debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) >> >> *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the >> following principles:* >> >> *II – protecting privacy;* >> >> *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression >> in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right >> of access to the Internet.* >> >> *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to >> application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, >> private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly >> involved.* >> >> *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be required >> to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other >> information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, >> as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* >> >> * * >> >> *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be >> communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the >> standards set forth by regulation.* >> >> * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to >> criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* >> >> I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at >> Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or >> contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded >> that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil >> creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Carol >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jun 13 12:28:03 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:28:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Parminder and Andrew. And I'm happy with the spirit of the letter. CTS/FGV will be happy to sign. Sorry for being off the thread for a while, we are also mobilizing things about Marco Civil over here so I'm a bit stressed. :) Do we already have any plans about how it is going to reach the Congress? On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will > justify my comment in a short while... parminder > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. > For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote > yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers > to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, > entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights > Internationally": > > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally > > However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the > various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because > of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and > because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New > York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data > collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually > is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It > very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may > also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's > been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made > to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that > it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually > *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons > content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one > has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; > they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in > reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest > editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest > disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on > assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. > The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a > human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people > regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating > them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's > current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality > and respect everyone's human rights." > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original > form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we > should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has > indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a >> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in >> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter >> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. " >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Hi people >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >> Best of the day.. >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 <%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 12:46:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:16:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak Of particular significance is this quote ""We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's amendments... Of course, happy to discuss this further. Parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will > justify my comment in a short while... parminder > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to >> add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague >> Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience >> and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human >> rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA >> Threatens Human Rights Internationally": >> >> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally >> >> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the >> various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), >> because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its >> reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news >> outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* >> how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA >> Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether >> or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, >> which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we >> suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the >> disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from >> or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it >> would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually >> *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US >> persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. >> Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to >> content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) >> "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 >> order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's >> suggestion into something like... >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest >> disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on >> assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been >> respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government >> surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging >> to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must >> refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its >> citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and >> practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs >> wrote: >> >>> +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its >>> original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been >>> violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to >>> decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >>> >>> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when >>> there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so >>> won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or >>> tomorrow morning. >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] *On Behalf Of >>> *Carolina Rossini >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >>> *To:* parminder >>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil >>> society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>> >>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>> >>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it >>> was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be >>> better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final >>> round. >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned >>> about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content >>> surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US >>> authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that >>> it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider >>> adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post >>> 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that >>> there was no access obtained to content related to /US >>> citizens/, and just their communication meta-data was collected. >>> There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to >>> content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of >>> their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the >>> difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on >>> an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights >>> is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every >>> government must refrain from violating them for all people, and >>> not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and >>> practices on this matter should take note of this. " >>> >>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, >>> which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to >>> address them separately, through a possible second statement. >>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not >>> quite right. >>> >>> "The introduction ofuntargeted surveillance mechanisms at the >>> heart of global digital communications severely threatens human >>> rights in the digital age. */These new forms of decentralized >>> power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information >>> systems in modern societies./* [3] and aAny step in this >>> direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >>> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >>> citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? >>> From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of >>> people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the >>> sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had >>> agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular >>> statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just >>> reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of >>> non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't >>> come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to >>> do.... >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should >>> release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to >>> agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but >>> would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi people >>> >>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week >>> with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention >>> on it.. >>> >>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because >>> that will overshadow any other Internet news... >>> >>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in >>> Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to >>> the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. >>> >>> Best of the day.. >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Greetings everyone >>> >>> Content is coming along well. >>> >>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving >>> people until >>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, >>> finalise it, >>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC >>> Friday for >>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the >>> business day >>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>> >>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable >>> us to get >>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on >>> Friday. Only >>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be >>> the Americas. >>> >>> Will this work? >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> >>> - -- >>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>> =ssiT >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >>> >>> skype: carolrossini >>> >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 13 12:56:28 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:56:28 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net>,<51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224355@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, I also support your text. As to the suggested further edits, my 2 cents is if this is being released/delivered inside the Beltway, then the tweaks of how to play inside baseball from - insiders resident there - I might listen to. But hey that's me ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:46 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's amendments... Of course, happy to discuss this further. Parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will justify my comment in a short while... parminder Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). Thanks, Anja On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein > wrote: I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > wrote: The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > wrote: Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: Hi people I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. Best of the day.. Nnenna On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings everyone Content is coming along well. Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. Will this work? Anriette On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= =ssiT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:58:25 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Kevin and Parminder, Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content > related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most > suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak > > Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- > like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the > communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack > every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and > must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) > > Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of > Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under > focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct > network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous > documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. > > Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email > that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court > order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and > students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring > no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the > technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of > evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till > compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. > > We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial > pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a > statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have > not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US > citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of > that... > > I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's > amendments... > > Of course, happy to discuss this further. > > Parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > > I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will > justify my comment in a short while... parminder > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. > For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote > yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers > to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, > entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights > Internationally": > > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally > > However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the > various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because > of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and > because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New > York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data > collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually > is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It > very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may > also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's > been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made > to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that > it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually > *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons > content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one > has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; > they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in > reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest > editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest > disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on > assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. > The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a > human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people > regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating > them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's > current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality > and respect everyone's human rights." > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original > form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we > should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has > indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a >> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in >> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter >> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. " >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Hi people >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >> Best of the day.. >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 13:05:35 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:05:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I understand your point and that is why language and grammar actually matters in bill drafting (every verb and comma matters!). I will look carefully at the Portuguse version and talk to Molon and other folks about it. But I do think we have a good opportunity to ensure that the positive side is also established. A question to pose would also be if the Marco Civil has space to set norms to "protect" Brazilian citizens from overreaching acts of foreign agencies. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I see. I didn't know of this this concept for the term 'positive > right', especially if its opposite is 'negative right', as you mentioned. > Positive right in this sense is very commonly understood as an entitlement > that the state positively do something - a provision or service of some > kind. It follows that social rights are thus positive rights. > Again, I believe all rights have both dimensions (negative and positive) > and fully support the view that there are positive actions the state must > take to protect privacy, instead of merely foregoing to violate it. > My only point is that the articles in the Marco Civil that you mentioned > do not convey that idea. They *can* be read as dispositions that protect > only a negative right to privacy. > > Best, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Ivar, >> >> I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a negative right, >> but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A positive right is a right that >> has been affirmed by statute, so in law or in a constitution of some kind, >> and opens the door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it >> gives us more control over our data. >> >> However, if you have a better language, you and any other person, should >> feel free to suggest. We still have time to improve. >> >> I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to consolidate >> suggestions and deliver to him. >> >> C >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < >> ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Carolina, >>> >>> Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are >>> better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I >>> don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. >>> *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of >>> privacy as a negative right alone*. >>> That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe >>> all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in >>> the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the >>> Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. >>> Best regards, >>> Ivar >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with >>>> you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco >>>> Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian >>>> Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative >>>> Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so >>>> it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in >>>> other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. >>>> Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries >>>> due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been >>>> incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and >>>> the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil >>>> debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) >>>> >>>> *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the >>>> following principles:* >>>> >>>> *II – protecting privacy;* >>>> >>>> *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of >>>> expression in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of >>>> the right of access to the Internet.* >>>> >>>> *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to >>>> application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, >>>> private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly >>>> involved.* >>>> >>>> *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be >>>> required to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other >>>> information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, >>>> as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be >>>> communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the >>>> standards set forth by regulation.* >>>> >>>> * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to >>>> criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* >>>> >>>> I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at >>>> Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or >>>> contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded >>>> that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil >>>> creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 13:09:35 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:39:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> To further clarify. The main point in my addition which goes away with Kevin's amendment is the fact of making the distinction between the claimed meta data related surveillance of US citizens and direct access to actual content in case of PRISM operations that relate to non US residents... Inside the US, the discussion seem to keep conflating these two very different kinds and levels of incursions and therefore in my view a global civil society statement should make the distinction clear.... And of course I also insist to harp on the fact that while US authorities have made so many statements stressing that the content related to US citizens was never accessed, they havent said a word about having made such infringements vis a vis non US citizens. I think that non US citizens have a right to stress this point . Happy to hear Kevin on this .. However I may very soon be going offline, parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 10:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Dear Kevin and Parminder, > > Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can > make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are > channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. > > Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. > > Carol > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct > content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger > than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements > at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak > > Of particular significance is this quote ""We hack network > backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us > access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers > without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an > extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he > says, and its veracity.) > > Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the > servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that > have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and > outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be > contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and > newspapers are still keeping from us. > > Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier > email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with > no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even > universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that > under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys > simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they > found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I > would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to > the contrary is shown. > > We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a > judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough > for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US > authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about > direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say > is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... > > I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly > Gene's amendments... > > Of course, happy to discuss this further. > > Parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. >> will justify my comment in a short while... parminder >> >> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is >>> seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and >>> my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our >>> domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the >>> international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just >>> about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": >>> >>> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally >>> >>> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of >>> the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and >>> clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some >>> of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other >>> major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we >>> actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done >>> via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other >>> words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It >>> very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; >>> it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the >>> other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone >>> records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the >>> US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be >>> preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't >>> know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons >>> content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. >>> Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to >>> content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is >>> BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the >>> PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing >>> Parminder's suggestion into something like... >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest >>> disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely >>> on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have >>> been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching >>> government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are >>> universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, >>> and every government must refrain from violating them for all >>> people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's >>> current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect >>> this reality and respect everyone's human rights." >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its >>>> original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been >>>> violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government >>>> to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when >>>> there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day >>>> today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast >>>> Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] *On Behalf Of >>>> *Carolina Rossini >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >>>> *To:* parminder >>>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil >>>> society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>>> >>>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>> >>>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>> >>>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of >>>> it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it >>>> would be better if a native english speaker take the lead >>>> on the final round. >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain >>>> concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens >>>> related content surveillance has not at all been addressed >>>> by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word >>>> on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >>>> group to consider adding the following paragraph >>>> somewhere...... >>>> >>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post >>>> 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted >>>> that there was no access obtained to content related to /US >>>> citizens/, and just their communication meta-data was >>>> collected. There has not been a word on the issue of >>>> large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>> which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing >>>> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment >>>> of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which >>>> essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every >>>> government must refrain from violating them for all people, >>>> and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US >>>> law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " >>>> >>>> >>>> I still have issues with the role of the involved >>>> companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am >>>> fine though to address them separately, through a possible >>>> second statement. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow >>>> looks not quite right. >>>> >>>> "The introduction ofuntargeted surveillance mechanisms at >>>> the heart of global digital communications severely >>>> threatens human rights in the digital age. */These new >>>> forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in >>>> the structure of information systems in modern societies./* >>>> [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized >>>> through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference >>>> with the human rights of citizens by any government, their >>>> own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>> >>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised >>>> power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab >>>> spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear >>>> from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two >>>> sentences... >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we >>>> had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this >>>> particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel >>>> (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >>>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was >>>> meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you >>>> really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, >>>> we do have some more work to do.... >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we >>>> should release this tomorrow already? My inclination >>>> would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait >>>> until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>>> tomorrow is a better idea. >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi people >>>> >>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the >>>> week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media >>>> attention on it.. >>>> >>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. >>>> because that will overshadow any other Internet news... >>>> >>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit >>>> in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw >>>> attention to the statement, as well as some that have >>>> been made by Best Bits. >>>> >>>> Best of the day.. >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> Greetings everyone >>>> >>>> Content is coming along well. >>>> >>>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving >>>> people until >>>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the >>>> text, finalise it, >>>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 >>>> GMT/UTC Friday for >>>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of >>>> the business day >>>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>> >>>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still >>>> enable us to get >>>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on >>>> Friday. Only >>>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons >>>> will be the Americas. >>>> >>>> Will this work? >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> - -- >>>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> >>>> executive director, association for progressive >>>> communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - >>>> http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>>> =ssiT >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com >>>> * >>>> >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >> > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 13:16:48 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:16:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I don't think it's worth arguing if Parminder feels strongly. But I did also want to make one point: in regard to direct tapping of the backbone network, I and the team back at EFF have been suing carriers and the government based on those exact allegations since 2006 so I completely share your concern. I just think it is confusing to conflate that issue with the PRISM and PATRIOT Section 215 issues. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > To further clarify. The main point in my addition which goes away with Kevin's amendment is the fact of making the distinction between the claimed meta data related surveillance of US citizens and direct access to actual content in case of PRISM operations that relate to non US residents... Inside the US, the discussion seem to keep conflating these two very different kinds and levels of incursions and therefore in my view a global civil society statement should make the distinction clear.... And of course I also insist to harp on the fact that while US authorities have made so many statements stressing that the content related to US citizens was never accessed, they havent said a word about having made such infringements vis a vis non US citizens. I think that non US citizens have a right to stress this point . Happy to hear Kevin on this .. > > However I may very soon be going offline, > > parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 10:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear Kevin and Parminder, >> >> Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. >> >> Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak >> >> Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) >> >> Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. >> >> Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. >> >> We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... >> >> I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's amendments... >> >> Of course, happy to discuss this further. >> >> Parminder >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will justify my comment in a short while... parminder >>> >>> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": >>>> >>>> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally >>>> >>>> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... >>>> >>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>> >>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Anja >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >>>>> To: parminder >>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native english speaker take the lead on the final round. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carol >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>>>> >>>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately, through a possible second statement. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite right. >>>>> >>>>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies. [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>>> >>>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two sentences... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow is a better idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>>> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will overshadow any other Internet news... >>>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> Greetings everyone >>>>> >>>>> Content is coming along well. >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>>>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >>>>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >>>>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >>>>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>>> >>>>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>>>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>>>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >>>>> >>>>> Will this work? >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - -- >>>>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>>> >>>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>>>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>>>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>>>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>>>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>>>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>>>> =ssiT >>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 11:18:38 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:18:38 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joana Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over. The text is not yet up on bestbits.net Or are we endorsing by mail? Best Nnenna On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > > Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open > participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public > Policy Issues. > > > Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and adopted > all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at the > working document. I hope you are happy with it > > > As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we > shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open > for endorsements at the platform. > > > So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through > this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits > platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help > us to upload the text? > > > Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. > But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention > the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's > meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of > course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? > > > All the best > > > Joana > > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > > -------- > > > Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group > on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues > > We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, > which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address > some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and > encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on > enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband > connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; > supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and > operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. > > We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and > inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We > believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the > willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing > about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. > > Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, > transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of > establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. > > We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder > participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the > ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU > Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group > on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be > open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him > to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample > consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to > the work of CWG-Internet. > > Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. We > note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which > proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open > CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting > meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, > and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the > contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all > documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary > 2014. > > We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet (which, > we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider > Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and > multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should > continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder > Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their > functions. > > But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not > sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, > sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and > consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and > participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a > meaningful civil society participation. > > In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and > contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved > upon. > > - > > Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before the > final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG with a > civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. > Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil > society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend > in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to > support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in > these contexts has no external means of financial support. > - > > Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU were > not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a truly > inclusive process. > - > > Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above > mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for > the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a > statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all > regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. > - > > It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation rights > at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. > > > Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more > participation from all stakeholders around the world. > > In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: > > - > > Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council > Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. > - > > Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official > documents for consideration. > - > > Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only > remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. > > > But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we > would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work > with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking > advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their > functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as > ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with > non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). > > For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important > stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Thu Jun 13 13:21:33 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:21:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] Message-ID: Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? Cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a > while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC > time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we > would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday > so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday > morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to > have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. > > Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you > have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts > his day tomorrow? > > Anriette > > > On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > > HRW... correct? > > > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed > here: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > > > Best > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > >> > >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > >> > >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a > native > >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about > the > >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > > not at > >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group > to > >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > >>> > >>> > >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on > the > >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > > which is > >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities > on > >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > > refrain > >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. > The > >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > > note of > >>> this. " > >>> > >>> > >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I > >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them > >>> separately, through a possible second statement. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > >>> right. > >>> > >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart > of > >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect > fundamental > >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > > societies**.*[3] and > >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens > by > >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > >>> > >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > > power, but > >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > >>> other two sentences... > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from > the > >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does > foreground > >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out > at > >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release > this > >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > > others > >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > > tomorrow > >>>> is a better idea. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi people > >>>>> > >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, > you > >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > > well as > >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best of the day.. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone > >> > >> Content is coming along well. > >> > >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > >> > >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the > >> Americas. > >> > >> Will this work? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>> > >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 14:04:47 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:47 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> I'm all for avoiding conflating the PRISM and records issues. Sent via mobile On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > To further clarify. The main point in my addition which goes away with Kevin's amendment is the fact of making the distinction between the claimed meta data related surveillance of US citizens and direct access to actual content in case of PRISM operations that relate to non US residents... Inside the US, the discussion seem to keep conflating these two very different kinds and levels of incursions and therefore in my view a global civil society statement should make the distinction clear.... And of course I also insist to harp on the fact that while US authorities have made so many statements stressing that the content related to US citizens was never accessed, they havent said a word about having made such infringements vis a vis non US citizens. I think that non US citizens have a right to stress this point . Happy to hear Kevin on this .. > > However I may very soon be going offline, > > parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 10:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear Kevin and Parminder, >> >> Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. >> >> Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak >>> >>> Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) >>> >>> Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. >>> >>> Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. >>> >>> We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... >>> >>> I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's amendments... >>> >>> Of course, happy to discuss this further. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will justify my comment in a short while... parminder >>>> >>>> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally >>>>> >>>>> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... >>>>> >>>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights." >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org >>>>> >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 15:04:00 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. What do people think? Sent via mobile On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. > > In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. > > Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? > > Cheers > Anne > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >> >> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >> his day tomorrow? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >> > >> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >> > HRW... correct? >> > >> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> > >> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >> > not at >> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> > which is >> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >> > refrain >> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >> > note of >> >>> this. " >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >>> >> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> >>> right. >> >>> >> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >> > societies**.*[3] and >> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >>> >> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >> > power, but >> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> >>> other two sentences... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >> > others >> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >> > tomorrow >> >>>> is a better idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi people >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >> > well as >> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best of the day.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Nnenna >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> >> Americas. >> >> >> >> Will this work? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>> >> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claudio at derechosdigitales.org Thu Jun 13 15:20:09 2013 From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:20:09 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I > think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely > this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three > coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective > coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and > confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us > are in all three groups. What do people think? > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate > culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we > should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one > or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could > be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that > ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand > it. > > In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter > under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that > done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan > for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC > to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global > solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in > increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be > other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt > complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned > above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the > near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. > > Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? > > Cheers > Anne > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >> >> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >> his day tomorrow? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >> > >> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >> > HRW... correct? >> > >> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >> here: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> > >> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >> native >> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about >> the >> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >> > not at >> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say >> a >> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >> group to >> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on >> the >> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> > which is >> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >> authorities on >> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >> > refrain >> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. >> The >> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >> > note of >> >>> this. " >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >>> >> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> >>> right. >> >>> >> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart >> of >> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >> fundamental >> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >> > societies**.*[3] and >> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >> deep >> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >> citizens by >> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >>> >> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >> > power, but >> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> >>> other two sentences... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the >> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >> foreground >> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out >> at >> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release >> this >> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >> > others >> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >> > tomorrow >> >>>> is a better idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi people >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, >> you >> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >> next >> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >> > well as >> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best of the day.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Nnenna >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise >> it, >> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> >> Americas. >> >> >> >> Will this work? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>> >> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 15:31:57 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:31:57 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: another list? oh my.... On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: > Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I >> think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely >> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three >> coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective >> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and >> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us >> are in all three groups. What do people think? >> >> Sent via mobile >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate >> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we >> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one >> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could >> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that >> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand >> it. >> >> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter >> under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that >> done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan >> for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC >> to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global >> solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in >> increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be >> other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt >> complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned >> above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the >> near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. >> >> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? >> >> Cheers >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >>> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >>> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >>> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >>> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >>> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >>> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >>> >>> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >>> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >>> his day tomorrow? >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >>> > >>> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and >>> cons >>> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >>> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >>> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >>> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out >>> yet. >>> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do >>> the >>> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >>> > HRW... correct? >>> > >>> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >>> here: >>> > >>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>> > >>> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > >>> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >>> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with >>> that. >>> > >>> > Best >>> > >>> > Anriette >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>> >> >>> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>> >> >>> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >>> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >>> native >>> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >>> >> >>> >> Carol >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about >>> the >>> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >>> > not at >>> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to >>> say a >>> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >>> group to >>> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no >>> access >>> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on >>> the >>> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>> > which is >>> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >>> authorities on >>> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on >>> an >>> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >>> > refrain >>> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. >>> The >>> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >>> > note of >>> >>> this. " >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >>> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not >>> quite >>> >>> right. >>> >>> >>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the >>> heart of >>> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >>> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >>> fundamental >>> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >>> > societies**.*[3] and >>> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >>> deep >>> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >>> citizens by >>> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>> >>> >>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From >>> the >>> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >>> > power, but >>> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between >>> the >>> >>> other two sentences... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >>> the >>> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >>> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >>> foreground >>> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >>> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come >>> out at >>> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release >>> this >>> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >>> > others >>> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>> > tomorrow >>> >>>> is a better idea. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Hi people >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with >>> it, you >>> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >>> next >>> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >>> > well as >>> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Nnenna >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> > wrote: >>> >> Greetings everyone >>> >> >>> >> Content is coming along well. >>> >> >>> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise >>> it, >>> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday >>> for >>> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business >>> day >>> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>> >> >>> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>> >> Americas. >>> >> >>> >> Will this work? >>> >> >>> >> Anriette >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 15:42:40 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:42:40 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: The alternative is consolidating discussion on one of the three lists (as Jeremy had suggested re: best bits, which I think is also a fine suggestion). But I am concerned that trying to discuss this on or with all of the lists is not sustainable in the long term. I understand the concern about "yet another list"--I concern I typically share--but I think that focusing discussion on one list would actually substantially reduce traffic, and duplication, and confusion, and missed connections and misunderstandings. On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > another list? oh my.... > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: > Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. What do people think? > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. >> >> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. >> >> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? >> >> Cheers >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >> >> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >> his day tomorrow? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >> > >> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >> > HRW... correct? >> > >> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> > >> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >> > not at >> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> > which is >> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >> > refrain >> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >> > note of >> >>> this. " >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >>> >> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> >>> right. >> >>> >> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >> > societies**.*[3] and >> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >>> >> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >> > power, but >> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> >>> other two sentences... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >> > others >> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >> > tomorrow >> >>>> is a better idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi people >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >> > well as >> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best of the day.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Nnenna >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> >> Americas. >> >> >> >> Will this work? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>> >> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claudio at derechosdigitales.org Thu Jun 13 15:54:05 2013 From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:54:05 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: Maybe this is the opportunity to have a separated private list, different to the wide open BB as suggested. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > The alternative is consolidating discussion on one of the three lists (as > Jeremy had suggested re: best bits, which I think is also a fine > suggestion). But I am concerned that trying to discuss this on or with all > of the lists is not sustainable in the long term. I understand the concern > about "yet another list"--I concern I typically share--but I think that > focusing discussion on one list would actually substantially reduce > traffic, and duplication, and confusion, and missed connections and > misunderstandings. > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > another list? oh my.... > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz < > claudio at derechosdigitales.org> wrote: > >> Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >>> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I >>> think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely >>> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three >>> coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective >>> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and >>> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us >>> are in all three groups. What do people think? >>> >>> Sent via mobile >>> >>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema >>> wrote: >>> >>> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate >>> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we >>> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one >>> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could >>> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that >>> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand >>> it. >>> >>> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter >>> under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that >>> done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan >>> for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC >>> to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global >>> solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in >>> increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be >>> other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt >>> complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned >>> above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the >>> near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. >>> >>> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >>>> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >>>> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >>>> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >>>> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >>>> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >>>> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >>>> >>>> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >>>> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >>>> his day tomorrow? >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >>>> > >>>> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and >>>> cons >>>> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >>>> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go >>>> for >>>> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >>>> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out >>>> yet. >>>> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do >>>> the >>>> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >>>> > HRW... correct? >>>> > >>>> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >>>> here: >>>> > >>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>>> > >>>> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> > >>>> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >>>> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with >>>> that. >>>> > >>>> > Best >>>> > >>>> > Anriette >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>> >> >>>> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>> >> >>>> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was >>>> lost >>>> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >>>> native >>>> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >>>> >> >>>> >> Carol >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned >>>> about the >>>> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >>>> > not at >>>> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to >>>> say a >>>> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >>>> group to >>>> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>>> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no >>>> access >>>> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>>> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word >>>> on the >>>> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>> > which is >>>> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >>>> authorities on >>>> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on >>>> an >>>> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>>> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >>>> > refrain >>>> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its >>>> citizens. The >>>> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >>>> > note of >>>> >>> this. " >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which >>>> I >>>> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>>> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not >>>> quite >>>> >>> right. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the >>>> heart of >>>> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >>>> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >>>> fundamental >>>> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >>>> > societies**.*[3] and >>>> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >>>> deep >>>> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >>>> citizens by >>>> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From >>>> the >>>> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >>>> > power, but >>>> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between >>>> the >>>> >>> other two sentences... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> parminder >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed >>>> from the >>>> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the >>>> US >>>> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >>>> foreground >>>> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in >>>> my >>>> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come >>>> out at >>>> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release >>>> this >>>> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >>>> > others >>>> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>>> > tomorrow >>>> >>>> is a better idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with >>>> it, you >>>> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that >>>> will >>>> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >>>> next >>>> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >>>> > well as >>>> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> Greetings everyone >>>> >> >>>> >> Content is coming along well. >>>> >> >>>> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>>> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise >>>> it, >>>> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday >>>> for >>>> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business >>>> day >>>> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>> >> >>>> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>>> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>>> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>>> >> Americas. >>>> >> >>>> >> Will this work? >>>> >> >>>> >> Anriette >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>> >>>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 16:34:10 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:34:10 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: One thing I support.... Private list may work better for some issues... Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: > Maybe this is the opportunity to have a separated private list, different to the wide open BB as suggested. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> The alternative is consolidating discussion on one of the three lists (as Jeremy had suggested re: best bits, which I think is also a fine suggestion). But I am concerned that trying to discuss this on or with all of the lists is not sustainable in the long term. I understand the concern about "yet another list"--I concern I typically share--but I think that focusing discussion on one list would actually substantially reduce traffic, and duplication, and confusion, and missed connections and misunderstandings. >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> another list? oh my.... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: >>>> Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>>>> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. What do people think? >>>>> >>>>> Sent via mobile >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >>>>>>> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >>>>>>> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >>>>>>> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >>>>>>> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >>>>>>> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >>>>>>> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >>>>>>> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >>>>>>> his day tomorrow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >>>>>>> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >>>>>>> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >>>>>>> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >>>>>>> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >>>>>>> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >>>>>>> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >>>>>>> > HRW... correct? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >>>>>>> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Anriette >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>>>> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >>>>>>> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >>>>>>> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Carol >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >>>>>>> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >>>>>>> > not at >>>>>>> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >>>>>>> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >>>>>>> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>>>>>> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >>>>>>> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>>>>>> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >>>>>>> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>>>>> > which is >>>>>>> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >>>>>>> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >>>>>>> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>>>>>> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >>>>>>> > refrain >>>>>>> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >>>>>>> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >>>>>>> > note of >>>>>>> >>> this. " >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >>>>>>> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>>>>>> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >>>>>>> >>> right. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >>>>>>> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >>>>>>> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >>>>>>> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >>>>>>> > societies**.*[3] and >>>>>>> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >>>>>>> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >>>>>>> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >>>>>>> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >>>>>>> > power, but >>>>>>> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >>>>>>> >>> other two sentences... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> parminder >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >>>>>>> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >>>>>>> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >>>>>>> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >>>>>>> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >>>>>>> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >>>>>>> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >>>>>>> > others >>>>>>> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>>>>>> > tomorrow >>>>>>> >>>> is a better idea. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >>>>>>> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>>>>> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>>>>>> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >>>>>>> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >>>>>>> > well as >>>>>>> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >> Greetings everyone >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Content is coming along well. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>>>>>> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >>>>>>> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >>>>>>> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >>>>>>> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >>>>>>> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>>>>>> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>>>>>> >> Americas. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Will this work? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Anriette >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>>> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> IRP mailing list >>>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Thu Jun 13 16:36:47 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:36:47 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: Why don't we use the webwewant list then instead of creating another new one? It is a closed list. cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Carolina wrote: > One thing I support.... Private list may work better for some issues... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Claudio Ruiz > wrote: > > Maybe this is the opportunity to have a separated private list, different > to the wide open BB as suggested. > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> The alternative is consolidating discussion on one of the three lists (as >> Jeremy had suggested re: best bits, which I think is also a fine >> suggestion). But I am concerned that trying to discuss this on or with all >> of the lists is not sustainable in the long term. I understand the concern >> about "yet another list"--I concern I typically share--but I think that >> focusing discussion on one list would actually substantially reduce >> traffic, and duplication, and confusion, and missed connections and >> misunderstandings. >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Carolina Rossini >> wrote: >> >> another list? oh my.... >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz < >> claudio at derechosdigitales.org> wrote: >> >>> Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-) >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>>> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, >>>> I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely >>>> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three >>>> coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective >>>> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and >>>> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us >>>> are in all three groups. What do people think? >>>> >>>> Sent via mobile >>>> >>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate >>>> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we >>>> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one >>>> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could >>>> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that >>>> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand >>>> it. >>>> >>>> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this >>>> letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for >>>> getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term >>>> game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on >>>> getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer >>>> global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be >>>> effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; >>>> there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected >>>> by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as >>>> mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some >>>> point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that >>>> seem strategic. >>>> >>>> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >>>>> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >>>>> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so >>>>> we >>>>> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >>>>> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >>>>> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >>>>> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing >>>>> on. >>>>> >>>>> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >>>>> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >>>>> his day tomorrow? >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same >>>>> loop) >>>>> > >>>>> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and >>>>> cons >>>>> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >>>>> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go >>>>> for >>>>> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >>>>> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out >>>>> yet. >>>>> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do >>>>> the >>>>> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >>>>> > HRW... correct? >>>>> > >>>>> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >>>>> here: >>>>> > >>>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>>>> > >>>>> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> > >>>>> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >>>>> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with >>>>> that. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best >>>>> > >>>>> > Anriette >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was >>>>> lost >>>>> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >>>>> native >>>>> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Carol >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned >>>>> about the >>>>> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance >>>>> has >>>>> > not at >>>>> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to >>>>> say a >>>>> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >>>>> group to >>>>> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>>>> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no >>>>> access >>>>> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>>>> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word >>>>> on the >>>>> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>>> > which is >>>>> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >>>>> authorities on >>>>> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens >>>>> on an >>>>> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is >>>>> very >>>>> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >>>>> > refrain >>>>> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its >>>>> citizens. The >>>>> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >>>>> > note of >>>>> >>> this. " >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, >>>>> which I >>>>> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>>>> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not >>>>> quite >>>>> >>> right. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the >>>>> heart of >>>>> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in >>>>> the >>>>> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >>>>> fundamental >>>>> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >>>>> > societies**.*[3] and >>>>> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >>>>> deep >>>>> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >>>>> citizens by >>>>> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From >>>>> the >>>>> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >>>>> > power, but >>>>> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between >>>>> the >>>>> >>> other two sentences... >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> parminder >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed >>>>> from the >>>>> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the >>>>> US >>>>> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >>>>> foreground >>>>> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in >>>>> my >>>>> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come >>>>> out at >>>>> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should >>>>> release this >>>>> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >>>>> > others >>>>> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>>>> > tomorrow >>>>> >>>> is a better idea. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with >>>>> it, you >>>>> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>>> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that >>>>> will >>>>> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >>>>> next >>>>> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, >>>>> as >>>>> > well as >>>>> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> Greetings everyone >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Content is coming along well. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >>>>> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, >>>>> finalise it, >>>>> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday >>>>> for >>>>> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business >>>>> day >>>>> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to >>>>> get >>>>> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >>>>> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >>>>> >> Americas. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Will this work? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Anriette >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:38:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:38:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> Message-ID: <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:06:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:06:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> That's just silly... and you know it as well or better than anyone... We already know by admission what is going on and what has been going on for at least 7 years (according to Mr. Clapper of the NSA)... We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. The challenge for us/CS and for anyone including governments, the technical community, and responsible elements in the private sector is to figure out ways of making those processes transparent and subject to the rule of law (and to create appropriate laws and governance/enforcement mechanisms as and where necessary... To not do so is to allow for the creation of a unipolar surveillance state which is, I would have thought, more or less universally repugnant. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:53 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > important and pervasive for there not to be I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, political or technical authority/power. > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 19:41:20 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:41:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. > > I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. > > Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:46:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:46:25 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> Message-ID: <13F57AF3-C0D6-49FC-A04A-C46E1ABC7B15@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 7:41 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? It seemed like the balance of views was towards releasing on Monday rather than Friday, so if we aim for Monday morning US, that would be 1pm GMT on Monday. I, for one, will aim to synchronise the release of a media article for Monday. So let's release then, yes? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Thu Jun 13 19:48:13 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:48:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> A few typos: Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". Thanks! Kevin ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! >> >> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> >> If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. >> >> I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. >> >> Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:58:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:58:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jun 13 20:00:07 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:00:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: Excellent work, fellows! And great improvements, Jeremy! Thanks for keep the platform always in eternal development. Do we have an strategy for delivering it to the right receivers? proud! joana On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the > latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references > to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To > address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to > "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. > The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" > should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". > > Thanks! > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the > text is now closed. > > I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted > last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to > verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, > I do not have any way of separating the organisational and > non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. > > Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and > convincing letter. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jun 13 20:12:47 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:12:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: Great work all! Is the idea to email the letter to all members of Congress? I've been doing some outreach to the DC -based groups that Anriette mentioned earlier, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page about the delivery strategy. Best, Deborah Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Excellent work, fellows! > > And great improvements, Jeremy! Thanks for keep the platform always in eternal development. > > Do we have an strategy for delivering it to the right receivers? > > proud! > > joana > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". > > Thanks! > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >>> >>> If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. >>> >>> I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. >>> >>> Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 20:30:14 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:30:14 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Anne, > Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? > > shall we have doodle to set up meeting? and we need to check for some place there quickly. I will be there. Best, Rafik > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >> >> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >> his day tomorrow? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >> > >> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >> > HRW... correct? >> > >> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >> here: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> > >> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >> native >> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about >> the >> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >> > not at >> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say >> a >> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >> group to >> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on >> the >> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> > which is >> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >> authorities on >> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >> > refrain >> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. >> The >> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >> > note of >> >>> this. " >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >>> >> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> >>> right. >> >>> >> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart >> of >> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >> fundamental >> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >> > societies**.*[3] and >> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >> deep >> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >> citizens by >> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >>> >> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >> > power, but >> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> >>> other two sentences... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the >> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >> foreground >> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out >> at >> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release >> this >> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >> > others >> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >> > tomorrow >> >>>> is a better idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi people >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, >> you >> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >> next >> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >> > well as >> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best of the day.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Nnenna >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise >> it, >> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> >> Americas. >> >> >> >> Will this work? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>> >> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Thu Jun 13 21:57:56 2013 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:57:56 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Great work Jeremy and everyone else who helped produce this letter! -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca * *steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook * * * *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates. * * * **Learn about the TPP's Internet trap: http://StopTheTrap.net * * * *Confidentiality Warning:** This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the > text is now closed. > > I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted > last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to > verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, > I do not have any way of separating the organisational and > non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. > > Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and > convincing letter. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 23:48:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:48:02 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net Message-ID: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> I have just created a private Best Bits list for civil society participants only, without public archives. This is not intended as a replacement for the main list, as there are several participants who have strong views about in general being as open as we can be, and by and large I'm one of those. But there are also times when discretion is required, and the private list may be useful for those times. Nobody is being automatically subscribed to the private list. If you do wish to do so, you can request subscription here: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/subscribe/private Subscription requests will be vetted by the moderator, which is currently me, and if I am in doubt (eg. because I don't know who you are), then I will consult with the steering committee (or until that exists, on the main list) first. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Fri Jun 14 05:01:41 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:01:41 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Dear all This issue is important, has generated a lot of energy and is moving some important mobilization forward. These discussions are perhaps not for everybody and having them come twice/three times can require a lot of filing and deleting. But this is not difficult. People I am sure can exercise their own delete/file discretion. No one list owns the discussion, this belongs to us all in one way or another. I move we keep the threads open to all and so accessible to all lists at the same time. Best Bits folk are leading the drafting and IRP folk are contributing and many many others are listening and watching from all corners of all lists. Why on earth would we want to confine this conversation?! Thanks MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston Sent: 13 June 2013 20:04 To: Anne Jellema Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; webwewant at googlegroups.com; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. What do people think? Sent via mobile On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema > wrote: Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? Cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: Dear all Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts his day tomorrow? Anriette On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > HRW... correct? > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > >wrote: >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > not at >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >>> >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which is >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > refrain >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > note of >>> this. " >>> >>> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >>> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >>> right. >>> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > societies**.*[3] and >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > power, but >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >>> other two sentences... >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >>> >>> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > wrote: >>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > others >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > tomorrow >>>> is a better idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people >>>>> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >>>>> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > well as >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> Best of the day.. >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > >wrote: >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Jun 7 12:34:54 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:34:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Nnnenna, and all, Since the text is not up on the Best Bits site yet, the plan is to endorse by mail for now. Then if Jeremy posts it to bestbits.net, he will notify the list and we can transfer the email endorsement to the site. Apologies for confusion! Best, Deborah On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Hi Joana > > Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over. The text is > not yet up on bestbits.net > > Or are we endorsing by mail? > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open >> participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public >> Policy Issues. >> >> >> Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and >> adopted all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at >> the working document. I hope you are happy with it >> >> >> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open >> for endorsements at the platform. >> >> >> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >> us to upload the text? >> >> >> Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. >> But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention >> the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's >> meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of >> course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? >> >> >> All the best >> >> >> Joana >> >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> -------- >> >> >> Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group >> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues >> >> We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, >> which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address >> some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and >> encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on >> enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband >> connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; >> supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and >> operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. >> >> We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and >> inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We >> believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the >> willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing >> about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. >> >> Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, >> transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of >> establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. >> >> We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder >> participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the >> ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU >> Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group >> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be >> open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him >> to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample >> consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to >> the work of CWG-Internet. >> >> Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. >> We note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which >> proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open >> CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting >> meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, >> and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the >> contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all >> documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary >> 2014. >> >> We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet (which, >> we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider >> Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and >> multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should >> continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder >> Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their >> functions. >> >> But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not >> sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, >> sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >> participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a >> meaningful civil society participation. >> >> In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and >> contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved >> upon. >> >> - >> >> Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before the >> final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG with a >> civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. >> Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil >> society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend >> in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to >> support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in >> these contexts has no external means of financial support. >> - >> >> Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU >> were not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a >> truly inclusive process. >> - >> >> Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above >> mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for >> the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a >> statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all >> regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. >> - >> >> It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation >> rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. >> >> >> Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more >> participation from all stakeholders around the world. >> >> In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: >> >> - >> >> Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council >> Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. >> - >> >> Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official >> documents for consideration. >> - >> >> Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only >> remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. >> >> >> But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we >> would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work >> with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking >> advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their >> functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as >> ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with >> non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). >> >> For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important >> stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. >> >> >> > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 06:37:33 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:37:33 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I agree strongly with Marianne here. Yes, some of us receive multiple copies: that is our choice. I would rather see the discussion on several lists and reach a wider group, than have it closed off because we might choose not to subscribe to yet another list. If anyone does not know how to create filters and folders, I know there are people on the lists who are willing to help. Hmm. Maybe the welcome email to discussion lists could include tips on filtering messages? Does a message or tips sheet already exist? If not, I may work on one this weekend. Any thoughts on that? Thanks to everyone for their work on this important discussion. I am sure I am not the only one who reads with avid interest but does not often intervene. Please do not underestimate the importance these discussions have for 'readers'. Have a great weekend, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 14 June 2013 04:01, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all**** > > ** ** > > This issue is important, has generated a lot of energy and is moving some > important mobilization forward. These discussions are perhaps not for > everybody and having them come twice/three times can require a lot of > filing and deleting. But this is not difficult. People I am sure can > exercise their own delete/file discretion.**** > > ** ** > > No one list owns the discussion, this belongs to us all in one way or > another. I move we keep the threads open to all and so accessible to all > lists at the same time. Best Bits folk are leading the drafting and IRP > folk are contributing and many many others are listening and watching from > all corners of all lists. Why on earth would we want to confine this > conversation?!**** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > MF**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Bankston > *Sent:* 13 June 2013 20:04 > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Anriette Esterhuysen; webwewant at googlegroups.com; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and > other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society > letter to Congress]**** > > ** ** > > In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I > think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely > this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three > coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective > coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and > confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us > are in all three groups. What do people think? > > Sent via mobile**** > > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:* > *** > > Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate > culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we > should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one > or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could > be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that > ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand > it. **** > > ** ** > > In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter > under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that > done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan > for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC > to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global > solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in > increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be > other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt > complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned > above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the > near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. > **** > > ** ** > > Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend?**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Anne**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote:**** > > Dear all > > Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a > while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC > time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we > would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday > so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday > morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to > have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. > > Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you > have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts > his day tomorrow? > > Anriette**** > > > > On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) > > > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons > > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for > > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also > > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. > > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the > > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, > > HRW... correct? > > > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed > here: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the > > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. > > > > Best > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > >> > >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > >> > >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost > >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a > native > >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about > the > >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has > > not at > >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a > >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group > to > >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > >>> > >>> > >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' > >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on > the > >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > > which is > >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities > on > >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an > >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very > >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must > > refrain > >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. > The > >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take > > note of > >>> this. " > >>> > >>> > >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I > >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them > >>> separately, through a possible second statement. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite > >>> right. > >>> > >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart > of > >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the > >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect > fundamental > >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > > societies**.*[3] and > >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep > >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens > by > >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > >>> > >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the > >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's > > power, but > >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the > >>> other two sentences... > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from > the > >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US > >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does > foreground > >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my > >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out > at > >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release > this > >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and > > others > >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel > > tomorrow > >>>> is a better idea. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi people > >>>>> > >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, > you > >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will > >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next > >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as > > well as > >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best of the day.. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > >> Greetings everyone > >> > >> Content is coming along well. > >> > >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until > >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, > >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for > >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day > >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > >> > >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get > >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only > >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the > >> Americas. > >> > >> Will this work? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>> > >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp* > *** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 07:17:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:17:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <04b401ce68f0$c24032b0$46c09810$@gmail.com> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer's trust on all American (.) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end. family stuff kept me off the Internet all day. but whoever did it did a great job. M From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM To: Kevin Bankston Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: A few typos: Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to "allegations" above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 14 07:50:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:50:08 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <51BB0370.6030408@ciroap.org> On 14/06/13 18:37, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree strongly with Marianne here. Yes, some of us receive multiple > copies: that is our choice. I would rather see the discussion on > several lists and reach a wider group, than have it closed off because > we might choose not to subscribe to yet another list. If anyone does > not know how to create filters and folders, I know there are people on > the lists who are willing to help. On the other hand, it actually obliges everyone to subscribe to all the lists, which they might not want to do; because otherwise, when they "Reply-all" their post will bounce from the lists to which they are not subscribed, annoying both them and the list moderator, and depriving the members of that list from their contribution. So I still believe there are merits in not exploding a single conversation across multiple lists. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 07:50:32 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:50:32 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I also feel that there is a danger in isolating a particular discussion, although I too find myself VERY bewildered from time to time. Having a single space, known to everyone, for any document under discussion relieves some of the confusion. Deirdre \ On 14 June 2013 06:37, Ginger Paque wrote: > I agree strongly with Marianne here. Yes, some of us receive multiple > copies: that is our choice. I would rather see the discussion on several > lists and reach a wider group, than have it closed off because we might > choose not to subscribe to yet another list. If anyone does not know how to > create filters and folders, I know there are people on the lists who are > willing to help. > > Hmm. Maybe the welcome email to discussion lists could include tips on > filtering messages? Does a message or tips sheet already exist? If not, I > may work on one this weekend. Any thoughts on that? > > Thanks to everyone for their work on this important discussion. I am sure > I am not the only one who reads with avid interest but does not often > intervene. Please do not underestimate the importance these discussions > have for 'readers'. > > Have a great weekend, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 14 June 2013 04:01, Marianne Franklin wrote: > >> Dear all**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This issue is important, has generated a lot of energy and is moving some >> important mobilization forward. These discussions are perhaps not for >> everybody and having them come twice/three times can require a lot of >> filing and deleting. But this is not difficult. People I am sure can >> exercise their own delete/file discretion.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> No one list owns the discussion, this belongs to us all in one way or >> another. I move we keep the threads open to all and so accessible to all >> lists at the same time. Best Bits folk are leading the drafting and IRP >> folk are contributing and many many others are listening and watching from >> all corners of all lists. Why on earth would we want to confine this >> conversation?!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> MF**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Bankston >> *Sent:* 13 June 2013 20:04 >> *To:* Anne Jellema >> *Cc:* Anriette Esterhuysen; webwewant at googlegroups.com; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and >> other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society >> letter to Congress]**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I >> think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely >> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three >> coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective >> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and >> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us >> are in all three groups. What do people think? >> >> Sent via mobile**** >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> **** >> >> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate >> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we >> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one >> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could >> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that >> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand >> it. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter >> under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that >> done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan >> for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC >> to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global >> solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in >> increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be >> other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt >> complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned >> above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the >> near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Cheers**** >> >> Anne**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote:**** >> >> Dear all >> >> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a >> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC >> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we >> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday >> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday >> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to >> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on. >> >> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you >> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts >> his day tomorrow? >> >> Anriette**** >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop) >> > >> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons >> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of >> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for >> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also >> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet. >> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the >> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT, >> > HRW... correct? >> > >> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed >> here: >> > >> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> > >> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the >> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a >> native >> >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about >> the >> >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has >> > not at >> >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say >> a >> >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >> group to >> >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on >> the >> >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> > which is >> >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US >> authorities on >> >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must >> > refrain >> >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. >> The >> >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take >> > note of >> >>> this. " >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> >>> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >>> >> >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> >>> right. >> >>> >> >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart >> of >> >>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect >> fundamental >> >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern >> > societies**.*[3] and >> >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, >> deep >> >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of >> citizens by >> >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >>> >> >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's >> > power, but >> >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> >>> other two sentences... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the >> >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does >> foreground >> >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out >> at >> >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release >> this >> >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and >> > others >> >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >> > tomorrow >> >>>> is a better idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi people >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, >> you >> >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka >> next >> >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as >> > well as >> >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best of the day.. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Nnenna >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise >> it, >> >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> >> Americas. >> >> >> >> Will this work? >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>>> >> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> >>> The Internet Democracy Project >> >>> >> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> **** >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:07:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:07:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <050901ce68f7$bc1dbf40$34593dc0$@gmail.com> A wee bit of off the wall humour after a rather heavy week. :) (Note the headline should probably read "Taiwanese" Humorists. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:01 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) 06/13/2013 Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden / NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) by Juan Cole Next Media Animation (a Taiwanese subsidiary of a Hong Kong firm) satirizes the Snowden/ NSA surveillance scandal by cartoon (English subtitles): -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51ba24ea201487851668833! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 14 08:45:24 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:45:24 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF1BB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF1BB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On 14/06/2013, at 8:09 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > It is a fundamental principle of equality surely online too? Openness and transparency are what we are fighting for, no? I think so, but I'm trying to be a neutral facilitator here, and this an issue on which there are equally strong opinions on both sides, manifested by repeated (off-list, uncuriously) requests for a closed list. I'm for radical transparency personally, but it seems to be quite an alien concept to some segments of civil society (I've found this in working on trade issues, for example), and so offering the choice seems to be the best middle path to take. The default though, I certainly agree, should be to use the open lists. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Fri Jun 14 08:09:59 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:09:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF1BB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Dear Jeremy Could you please be more specific as to why there is a need to go private here? I have subscribed but on so doing I have also generated yet another list for my inbox! There are several lists up and running the predate Best Bits and also feed in and out of Best Bits. Unless this is a specific working group task that requires some off list comms then I am still unclear as to why all this energy is being expended going private. Do not get me wrong here, the work achieved on the letter has been exemplary, thanks to the leadership but also, let us not forget, the ability for people on all lists to multi-task, deal with their email traffic in ways that work for then, and also respond in the multiple roles we all play in real life. Openness and transparency have their downside but short of vetting everyone who signs up, or intervenes, or reads without comments we have to be on the side of inclusiveness and diversity in the long run. The IRP Charter and Ten Principles, the APC internet rights are human rights campaign, and all those preceding and accompanying these initiatives are all basing themselves on the argument that secrecy is a tool wielded by the powerful against those with less power. It is a fundamental principle of equality surely online too? Openness and transparency are what we are fighting for, no? best MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 14 June 2013 04:48 To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] New private list private at lists.bestbits.net I have just created a private Best Bits list for civil society participants only, without public archives. This is not intended as a replacement for the main list, as there are several participants who have strong views about in general being as open as we can be, and by and large I'm one of those. But there are also times when discretion is required, and the private list may be useful for those times. Nobody is being automatically subscribed to the private list. If you do wish to do so, you can request subscription here: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/subscribe/private Subscription requests will be vetted by the moderator, which is currently me, and if I am in doubt (eg. because I don't know who you are), then I will consult with the steering committee (or until that exists, on the main list) first. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:04:48 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:04:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF1BB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I am all for transparency, too. I even document my day to day work in wikis. However, sometimes we just need a private forum to discuss strategy. That is all. People can or cannot use it. But at least, they have the alternative. And it is just an alternative. C On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/06/2013, at 8:09 PM, Marianne Franklin > wrote: > > It is a fundamental principle of equality surely online too? Openness and > transparency are what we are fighting for, no? > > > I think so, but I'm trying to be a neutral facilitator here, and this an > issue on which there are equally strong opinions on both sides, manifested > by repeated (off-list, uncuriously) requests for a closed list. I'm for > radical transparency personally, but it seems to be quite an alien concept > to some segments of civil society (I've found this in working on trade > issues, for example), and so offering the choice seems to be the best > middle path to take. The default though, I certainly agree, should be to > use the open lists. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:13:21 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:13:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_congres?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?o_americano?= Message-ID: Hola a todos, Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw Ayuda es bien venida! C -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:12:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:12:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF1BB@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <05ce01ce6900$ed081750$c71845f0$@gmail.com> +1 M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:05 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Marianne Franklin; (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] New private list private at lists.bestbits.net Hi all, I am all for transparency, too. I even document my day to day work in wikis. However, sometimes we just need a private forum to discuss strategy. That is all. People can or cannot use it. But at least, they have the alternative. And it is just an alternative. C On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 14/06/2013, at 8:09 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote: It is a fundamental principle of equality surely online too? Openness and transparency are what we are fighting for, no? I think so, but I'm trying to be a neutral facilitator here, and this an issue on which there are equally strong opinions on both sides, manifested by repeated (off-list, uncuriously) requests for a closed list. I'm for radical transparency personally, but it seems to be quite an alien concept to some segments of civil society (I've found this in working on trade issues, for example), and so offering the choice seems to be the best middle path to take. The default though, I certainly agree, should be to use the open lists. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Jun 7 12:48:17 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:48:17 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yep, the idea is have the endorsements from this list through email and once it is on at the bestbits site, with the endorsements we have already collected, we spread the link and call for support at the other lists. On 7 Jun 2013 18:35, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > Hi Nnnenna, and all, > > Since the text is not up on the Best Bits site yet, the plan is to endorse > by mail for now. Then if Jeremy posts it to bestbits.net, he will notify > the list and we can transfer the email endorsement to the site. > > Apologies for confusion! > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> >> Hi Joana >> >> Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over. The text is >> not yet up on bestbits.net >> >> Or are we endorsing by mail? >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open >>> participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public >>> Policy Issues. >>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and >>> adopted all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at >>> the working document. I hope you are happy with it >>> >>> >>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>> >>> >>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >>> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >>> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >>> us to upload the text? >>> >>> >>> Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. >>> But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention >>> the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's >>> meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of >>> course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? >>> >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> >>> Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working >>> Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues >>> >>> We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, >>> which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address >>> some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and >>> encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on >>> enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband >>> connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; >>> supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and >>> operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. >>> >>> We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and >>> inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We >>> believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the >>> willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing >>> about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. >>> >>> Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, >>> transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of >>> establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. >>> >>> We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder >>> participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the >>> ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU >>> Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group >>> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be >>> open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him >>> to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample >>> consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to >>> the work of CWG-Internet. >>> >>> Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. >>> We note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which >>> proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open >>> CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting >>> meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, >>> and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the >>> contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all >>> documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary >>> 2014. >>> >>> We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet >>> (which, we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider >>> Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and >>> multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should >>> continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder >>> Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their >>> functions. >>> >>> But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not >>> sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, >>> sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >>> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >>> participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a >>> meaningful civil society participation. >>> >>> In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and >>> contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved >>> upon. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before >>> the final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG >>> with a civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. >>> Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil >>> society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend >>> in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to >>> support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in >>> these contexts has no external means of financial support. >>> - >>> >>> Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU >>> were not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a >>> truly inclusive process. >>> - >>> >>> Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above >>> mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for >>> the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a >>> statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all >>> regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. >>> - >>> >>> It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation >>> rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. >>> >>> >>> Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more >>> participation from all stakeholders around the world. >>> >>> In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council >>> Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. >>> - >>> >>> Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official >>> documents for consideration. >>> - >>> >>> Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only >>> remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. >>> >>> >>> But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we >>> would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work >>> with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking >>> advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their >>> functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as >>> ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with >>> non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). >>> >>> For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important >>> stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From graciela at nupef.org.br Fri Jun 14 07:29:29 2013 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:29:29 -0300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress] In-Reply-To: References: <1173F9C6-6B3D-4DD4-98E0-990320456A45@cdt.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACEF6C@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <51BAFE99.4030602@nupef.org.br> Totally agree. best, Graciela Em 6/14/13 7:37 AM, Ginger Paque escreveu: > I agree strongly with Marianne here. Yes, some of us receive multiple > copies: that is our choice. I would rather see the discussion on > several lists and reach a wider group, than have it closed off because > we might choose not to subscribe to yet another list. If anyone does > not know how to create filters and folders, I know there are people on > the lists who are willing to help. > > Hmm. Maybe the welcome email to discussion lists could include tips on > filtering messages? Does a message or tips sheet already exist? If > not, I may work on one this weekend. Any thoughts on that? > > Thanks to everyone for their work on this important discussion. I am > sure I am not the only one who reads with avid interest but does not > often intervene. Please do not underestimate the importance these > discussions have for 'readers'. > > Have a great weekend, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > /*The latest from Diplo...*/ //Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT > Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data > Protection. //Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses// > > *//* > > > On 14 June 2013 04:01, Marianne Franklin > wrote: > > Dear all > > This issue is important, has generated a lot of energy and is > moving some important mobilization forward. These discussions are > perhaps not for everybody and having them come twice/three times > can require a lot of filing and deleting. But this is not > difficult. People I am sure can exercise their own delete/file > discretion. > > No one list owns the discussion, this belongs to us all in one way > or another. I move we keep the threads open to all and so > accessible to all lists at the same time. Best Bits folk are > leading the drafting and IRP folk are contributing and many many > others are listening and watching from all corners of all lists. > Why on earth would we want to confine this conversation?! > > Thanks > > MF > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Kevin > Bankston > *Sent:* 13 June 2013 20:04 > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Anriette Esterhuysen; webwewant at googlegroups.com > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, > and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international > civil society letter to Congress] > > In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused > way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list > focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested > people from the three coalitions can participate and then report > back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting > is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary > especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. > What do people think? > > Sent via mobile > > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema > wrote: > > Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re > corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that > beyond this letter, we should consider a separate > consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of > the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action > could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask > simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google > users can easily understand it. > > In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and > this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to > everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start > mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few > months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to > act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global > solidarity to the stopwatching.us > campaign where it can be effective in increasing that > campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other > domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by > govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; > and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing > action at some point in the near future, or work together to > take on other targets that seem strategic. > > Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend? > > Cheers > > Anne > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > Dear all > > Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be > online for a > while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon > Washington DC > time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign > on... so we > would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 > UTC/GMT Friday > so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday > morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time > zones to > have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on > signing on. > > Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today > (as you > have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when > he starts > his day tomorrow? > > Anriette > > > > On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the > same loop) > > > > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are > pros and cons > > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of > > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy > for us go for > > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. > It also > > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been > figured out yet. > > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington > DC to do the > > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be > FreePress, CDT, > > HRW... correct? > > > > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being > developed here: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > > > Discussion of the contents is taking place on > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal > with the > > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to > help with that. > > > > Best > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. > >> > >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. > >> > >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of > it was lost > >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be > better if a native > >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. > >> > >> Carol > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder > > >wrote: > >>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain > concerned about the > >>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content > surveillance has > > not at > >>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent > bothered to say a > >>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would > like the group to > >>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... > >>> > >>> > >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post > 'disclosures' > >>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there > was no access > >>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their > >>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been > a word on the > >>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US > citizens, > > which is > >>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US > authorities on > >>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and > non-citizens on an > >>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human > rights is very > >>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every > government must > > refrain > >>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its > citizens. The > >>> current and future US law and practices on this matter > should take > > note of > >>> this. " > >>> > >>> > >>> I still have issues with the role of the involved > companies, which I > >>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to > address them > >>> separately, through a possible second statement. > >>> > >>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow > looks not quite > >>> right. > >>> > >>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms > at the heart of > >>> global digital communications severely threatens human > rights in the > >>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power > reflect fundamental > >>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern > > societies**.*[3] and > >>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized > through ample, deep > >>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights > of citizens by > >>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." > >>> > >>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised > power'? From the > >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of > people's > > power, but > >>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged > between the > >>> other two sentences... > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> > >>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had > agreed from the > >>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement > would be the US > >>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it > does foreground > >>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant > to do in my > >>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that > doesn't come out at > >>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs > > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we > should release this > >>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with > Nnenna and > > others > >>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why > you feel > > tomorrow > >>>> is a better idea. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi people > >>>>> > >>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the > week with it, you > >>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. > >>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. > because that will > >>>>> overshadow any other Internet news... > >>>>> > >>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit > in Lusaka next > >>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the > statement, as > > well as > >>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best of the day.. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > >wrote: > >> Greetings everyone > >> > >> Content is coming along well. > >> > >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving > people until > >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, > finalise it, > >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 > GMT/UTC Friday for > >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the > business day > >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). > >> > >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable > us to get > >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on > Friday. Only > >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will > be the > >> Americas. > >> > >> Will this work? > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>>> > >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs > >>> The Internet Democracy Project > >>> > >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > >>> www.internetdemocracy.in > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Graciela Selaimen Instituto Nupef www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br www.rets.org.br www.tiwa.org.br **************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skorpio at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 10:58:36 2013 From: skorpio at gmail.com (Jaco Aizenman) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:58:36 -0600 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACD4F0@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <51B7F29A.6030106@ciroap.org> <51B830FC.6050005@apc.org> <151701ce676d$3c01cc10$b4056430$@gmail.com> <51B87F7E.8090608@apc.org> <2B8C151F-05CA-43BC-A3EC-0E03376EBBC2@cdt.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <7547E286-FA40-478E-A68D-5EBEF142A80C@cdt.org> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACD4F0@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: The scope most be international! On Jun 13, 2013 4:57 AM, "Marianne Franklin" wrote: > I am still getting up to speed this morning on how the drafting is > going; Anja’s points below following others about needing to be clear that > including a comment on whistleblowers and also being sure to address the US > congress in such a way that makes sense to that audience (which is Kevin’s > point if I remember many responses back!) need not adopt a position that > underscores a US-centric understanding. **** > > ** ** > > As this issue emanates from the US, addressing US representatives is > primary. But as Anja notes, internet freedom is not only a US prerogative. > **** > > ** ** > > Looking forward to the final ‘clean’ version so that IRP coalition members > can confer and sign up if this is the decision.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks all again for the work!**** > > ** ** > > MF**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* 12 June 2013 18:06 > *To:* Kevin Bankston > *Cc:* anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress > to follow up from HRC statement**** > > ** ** > > I agree with Joana and Anriette that a reference to at least our own > concern and support for whistleblowers should stay in. Unless we want to > write a whole separate statement on that (which is perhaps worth > considering, seeing the USA's recent record on this count).**** > > I also support the changes suggested by Joana which ensure we do no longer > address the USA as a "global leader on Internet freedom" while still > pointing out how the USA is hurting its own credibility with these > revelations. Neither do I consider the USA a leader in this field, nor does > the Internet Democracy Project associate with the term "Internet freedom" > to describe its field of work - and I think we might not be alone in this. > **** > > Many thanks to all who have been working on this. **** > > Best, > Anja**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On 12 June 2013 22:20, Kevin Bankston wrote:**** > > I'm afraid not > > Sent via mobile**** > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round > > the bend. > > > > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to. > > > > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make > > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such > > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'? > > > > anriette > > > > > > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote: > >> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and > >> leave the last part of the final paragraph: > >> > >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the > >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat > >> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of > American > >> and foreign citizens.[9]" > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >> > >>> "So we need others to protect him from US.." > >>> > >>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his > >>> protection, isnt it? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international > >>>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain > >>>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and > actually > >>>> public interest. > >>>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything > else > >>>> would work in this case. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, > where > >>>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US > >>>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are > >>>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what > Snowden did > >>>>> as a clear violation of the law. > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>> > >>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As I've mentioned in the document: > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the > future > >>>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, > the guy > >>>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him > is also > >>>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our > Statement > >>>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement > to > >>>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston >wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought > bestbists > >>>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding > that list > >>>>>>> back into cc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one > big > >>>>>>> comment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The tweaks: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also > >>>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I > am > >>>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's > cooperation > >>>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval > (for the > >>>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T > and the NSA > >>>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now > the > >>>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret > *order* of the > >>>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those > orders we > >>>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the > "complicity" brush. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish > statistics" > >>>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are > forbidden > >>>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to > do so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the > paragraph > >>>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction > from the > >>>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the > stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after > a lot of > >>>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from > what he is > >>>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> K > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement > and > >>>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global > human rights > >>>>>>> impact of this issue. > >>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the > >>>>>>> letter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> C > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon < > joana at varonferraz.com>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might. > >>>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the > Freedom > >>>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting. > >>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Kevin, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space > to > >>>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of > authority ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> C > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston < > kbankston at cdt.org>wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a > >>>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act > was an > >>>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not > a separate > >>>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is > no statute > >>>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can > >>>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence > and terrorism > >>>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside > the United > >>>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the > United > >>>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the > extent it > >>>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized > permanent > >>>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter > authority which is > >>>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going > through the FISA > >>>>>>>>>> Court. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) > non-Americans > >>>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the > US, 3) > >>>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the > US. > >>>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the > extent > >>>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of > non-Americans outside > >>>>>>>>>> of America. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code: > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual > wiretaps > >>>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, > III with pen > >>>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of > metadata), IV > >>>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders > since it was > >>>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, > Subchapter > >>>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided > the new and > >>>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders > authorizing > >>>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications > where at > >>>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, > while also > >>>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any > >>>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is > the authority > >>>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand > it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these > laws--and > >>>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact > the privacy > >>>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks > and services, > >>>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance > of > >>>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to > accomplish > >>>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>> Kevin > >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston > >>>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > >>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology > >>>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > >>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 > >>>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct > >>>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax > >>>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < > >>>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be > happy > >>>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send > tomorrow or > >>>>>>>>>> Friday. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's > >>>>>>>>>> questions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> M > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [ > >>>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] > On > >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; > >>>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to > >>>>>>>>>> Congress to > >>>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement > >>>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. > Will > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> around all day if needed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anriette > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web > >>>>>>>>>> Foundation > >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society > >>>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That > >>>>>>>>>> letter > >>>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights > >>>>>>>>>> Council, > >>>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy > International > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested > >>>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition. > >>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC > and I > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and > >>>>>>>>>> improvements: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb > >>>>>>>>>> URL) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid > >>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened > >>>>>>>>>> inadvertently > >>>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we > centralise on > >>>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at > >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits. To bring in > >>>>>>>>>> others, you > >>>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups > >>>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an > >>>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>>>>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>>>>>>> south africa > >>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, > >>>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out > . > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>>>> @carolinarossini > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)< > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>>>> @joana_varon > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Carolina Rossini* > >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>>> + 1 6176979389 > >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>>> skype: carolrossini > >>>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> > >>> @joana_varon > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >**** > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in**** > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 12 17:43:12 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:43:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <91C1712D-16A8-49B6-B339-32D9229A5D9F@webfoundation.org> <5D1E858E-BABC-415A-9F4C-2F76B7808CEA@cdt.org> <87768D97-9234-4C24-9990-9DA4C0AEF98D@cdt.org> <51B8A614.1080803@apc.org> <5CF3AB5D-CA92-46AF-AECE-5AD9BE3D266A@cdt.org> <51B8CFC2.7080100@apc.org> <0728809A-2031-4BE1-97E9-7CC6FA815750@cdt.org> <51B8D524.10106! 04@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, I think this is a good idea, but think it might be better as a paragraph at the end, just before the signatures, so that the note starts strongly with the issue itself and not with us talking about ourselves. avri On 12 Jun 2013, at 17:37, Cynthia Wong wrote: > One more suggestion from me, which I hesitate to add directly into the document since it is a question of self-identification. > > It would be useful to have a short description at the beginning of the letter that describes the kinds of organizations on the list, beyond the umbrella “civil society organizations.” I realize this may be difficult depending on the diversity of sign-ons. However, for example, it may be valuable to explain that many/some/all of the undersigned groups work to defend and promote human rights and access to an open Internet all around the world, or something similar. > > I only suggest this because this letter may go to members of congress that won’t have an understanding of the work that this community does. It also helps to underscore that the USG’s programs have implications far beyond the narrow set of civil liberties that are usually the center of policy debates in the US. > > Thanks, > Cynthia > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:37 PM > To: joy at apc.org > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > Hi Joy, > > I just finished cleaning it up, but have kept the marked version just below the clean one. > > Cynthia, feel free to edit the document directly with your suggestions. > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > I also have tried to incorporate Cynthia's suggestions. > > C > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > hi - can I check who is holding the pen on this draft at the moment? i > am avialable to help but don't want to do anything as i am not sure > where the drafting got to overnight.... > checking back on the emails now - but please let me know if you need help > Joy > On 13/06/2013 8:01 a.m., Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Thanks Anriette. It seems like people are OK with my proposal so I stuck it in the Pad (along with > CDT's name as a signer). > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> I think Anja puts it very well. Our letter will be part of a series of > >> complimentary actions and we should feel comfortable with asking others > >> from the Global South to sign on to it. > >> > >> Kevin I am happy with your language as well. > >> > >> What we do want to avoid in my view is to use language that will > >> encourage readers to dismiss the message we try to get across as being > >> crudely anti-US. > >> > >> Who is doing the next clean draft? > >> > >> I am happy to work on edits in the morning if needed. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> On 12/06/2013 21:25, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> Dear Gene and all, > >>> > >>> As this statement is supposed to be one of international civil > society, I > >>> think it is important to retain that flavour - I don't think there is a > >>> point in simply replicating what US civil society has had to say. > >>> > >>> This is my belief also because I don't see this intervention in > isolation, > >>> but as part of a broader engagement with US institutions, including with > >>> the State Department, in which we attempt precisely to convey > alternative > >>> perspectives on core Internet issues, rather than simply feeding into an > >>> agenda already set for us. > >>> > >>> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think > >>> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, > so as to > >>> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I > do think > >>> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is > >>> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a > >>> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet > >>> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly > political > >>> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such > >>> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a > >>> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement > >>> acceptable to all. > >>> > >>> And I for one am happy with the framing suggested by Kevin on the > >>> whistle-blowers issue, by the way. > >>> > >>> Thanks and best regards, > >>> Anja > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >> executive director, association for progressive communications > >> www.apc.org > >> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >> south africa > >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >> > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNUkAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqCYcIAK5Sy1Z6zBV4FOTYIPwy4G5v > nEtLh9/Pkl5arqkUzpFsOYqr8zLE+epvy9eY9lrsXeEZgsPmPFgHeF8Ce8E/Pn0E > VoNF/3WiUG3V0RlmZ6w7rwEcmadX5t4/6nbgkcUSTnbfWPLcsU5jKyjnSOZhkLbe > wE72F42oyJOW2XvybwKr8eH4bTL/Kjc95qjY5X4bz32TAxrNdpKTdD5cZOyJAcNP > RCtrJAiO7tQSAhQoBooQIK0Sj3cBOP0UV6U99fPvZ76rCRaCQCmiZ+CZMl6gyCNk > tHv+e/1FOGZtBkJBMegSEmlZfVzHnj4ZHjNyfO3EO9BOjRe5MKWLicmOise6H0E= > =OELq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 14 09:54:38 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:54:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6BD6ED19-E0D0-4FAF-A5B6-F9A50DCB4587@acm.org> Hi, I don't beleive in closed lists, but when they exist I try to join them. And then hope they will eventually open. One thing to note, I have rarely seen a closed list actually be totally leak proof. I think experience shows that closing something enables leakage, especially if anything someone considers inappropriate is done. I think that in Civil Society, considering how much is hidden from us, we should operate on a presumption of complete transparency, with the only exceptions involving privacy issues that can be explained transparently. I do appreciate, however, all the work you do Jeremy to get dialogues going and to provide the platforms for coperatinve work. avri On 13 Jun 2013, at 23:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I have just created a private Best Bits list for civil society participants only, without public archives. This is not intended as a replacement for the main list, as there are several participants who have strong views about in general being as open as we can be, and by and large I'm one of those. But there are also times when discretion is required, and the private list may be useful for those times. > > Nobody is being automatically subscribed to the private list. If you do wish to do so, you can request subscription here: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/subscribe/private > > Subscription requests will be vetted by the moderator, which is currently me, and if I am in doubt (eg. because I don't know who you are), then I will consult with the steering committee (or until that exists, on the main list) first. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:57:40 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:57:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_c?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ongreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Done. At http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw. (There is a journalist from Lima checking my spanish, to be sure it is spanish and not portunol) ;-) Jeremy, could you insert both French and Spanish in the Best Bits site pleaseee? :-) On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! > > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antiropy at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 10:01:08 2013 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:01:08 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgovernance=5D_Version_en_Espa?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F1ol_-_carta_al_congreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: <9314FCB4-F561-41F6-8A0F-0E5A1B9A5A73@ciroap.org> References: <9314FCB4-F561-41F6-8A0F-0E5A1B9A5A73@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy Malcolm, Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet translated the letter into Korean. http://act.jinbo.net/drupal/node/7566 Best Regards, Oh Byoungil 2013/6/15 Jeremy Malcolm > On 14/06/2013, at 9:13 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! > > > Awesome Carolina and Dominique, these two translations are linked from the > original now (though styling still needs a bit of work). > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Sat Jun 15 11:15:05 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:15:05 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] What's New On The Spies Without Borders Series? In-Reply-To: <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51BC84F9.3080802@eff.org> Below, you will find a series of articles looking into how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect the international community and how they highlight one part of an international system of surveillance that dissolves what national privacy protections any of us have, whereever we live. These articles are being published in both EFF and OpenMedia site. Spies Without Borders II: Foreign Surveillance Post-9/11. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC), Katitza Rodriguez (EFF), Mark Rumold (EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/foreign-surveillance-history-privacy-erosions Spies Without Borders III: Modern Foreign Surveillance - A Legal Perspective. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC), Katitza Rodriguez (EFF), Mark Rumold (EFF), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/modern-foreign-surveillance-legal-perspective The full series is here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders Best -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 From deborah at accessnow.org Sun Jun 16 11:36:42 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:36:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Message-ID: Hi all, I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: - Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) - Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this - Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply *Are there other factors we should be considering? * Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. *upside: *we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. *downside*: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: *reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. *downside*: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. *upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: *Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system and name brand recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're international and well established. *downside*: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. *What options are missing here?* I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. All the best, Deborah On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts > consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." > (word missing--likely "companies"**** > > ** ** > > Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the > end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did > a great job…**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM > *To:* Kevin Bankston > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > webwewant at googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society > letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement**** > > ** ** > > On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote:**** > > > > **** > > A few typos:**** > > ** ** > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the > latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references > to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To > address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to > "apparently"?**** > > ** ** > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed"**** > > ** ** > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. > The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" > should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". * > *** > > ** ** > > Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN > Human Rights Council.**** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013**** > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary.**** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 11:56:07 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:56:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. > > From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. > > Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? > > Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: > Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) > Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this > Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply > Are there other factors we should be considering? > > Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. > > 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. > > 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? > > 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. > > 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond > > 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. > > I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. > > What options are missing here? > > I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. > > Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? > > Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" > > > > Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… > > > > M > > > > From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM > To: Kevin Bankston > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > > > On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > > > > A few typos: > > > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? > > > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". > > > > Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 13:28:39 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:28:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" My 2 cents Nnenna On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear > Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless > someone can just send it through an existing list. > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who > we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email > contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as > the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of > Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. > Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, > and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of > the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to > Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and > we now have a few options to bring back to the group. > > From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union > (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their > backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we > want. > > Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? > > Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the > "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: > > - Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) > - Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on > this > - Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply > > *Are there other factors we should be considering? > * > > Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial > thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. > > 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. *upside: *we'd > be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. *downside*: May not > be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. > > 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: *reflective of actual > authorship, already has buy-in from group members. *downside*: minimal > recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage > response or follow up? > > 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. * > upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: *Are EFF/CDT perceived as > int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their > capacity to respond. > > 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system and name brand > recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and it may be problematic > to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its > drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond > > 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're international and well > established. *downside*: not sure about their recognition in Congress. > Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. > > I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the > dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, > however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., > I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on > behalf of this coalition. > > *What options are missing here?* > > I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are > on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. > > Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're > planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant > committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? > > Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts >> consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." >> (word missing--likely "companies"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the >> end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did >> a great job…**** >> >> ** ** >> >> M**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >> *To:* Kevin Bankston >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> webwewant at googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society >> letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> A few typos:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the >> latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references >> to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To >> address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to >> "apparently"?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. >> The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" >> should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN >> Human Rights Council.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013**** >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> **** >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:48:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:48:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Great... So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we opposing? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk [MG>] ... > We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance > and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. so we shouldn't oppose it? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 16 13:48:07 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:48:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I think this is a great approach. avri On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" > > My 2 cents > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >> >> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >> >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >> >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >> • Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >> • Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >> • Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >> Are there other factors we should be considering? >> >> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >> >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >> >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >> >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >> >> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >> >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >> >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >> >> What options are missing here? >> >> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >> >> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >> >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >> >> >> >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >> To: Kevin Bankston >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >> >> >> >> A few typos: >> >> >> >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >> >> >> >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >> >> >> >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >> >> >> >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jun 16 14:02:53 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:02:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224CFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Agreed re 'Best Bits Coalition' as sender; and with Gene on having a short list of locally reachable contact points/orgs/individuals also listed for follow-up. "I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization)." Now my 1 cent: An instant/flash mob cross-org press conference same day of release ( 4pm tomorrow?), especially if there is a rainbow coalition of distinctly international orgs + US orgs on hand to field the few questions, maybe is showy enough by giving the media a photo op, to get some level of coverage. Time to turn up the pr to maybe help get Congress to register receipt of letter? Lee ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:48 PM To: Best Bits Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Hi, I think this is a great approach. avri On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" > > My 2 cents > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >> >> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >> >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >> >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >> • Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >> • Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >> • Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >> Are there other factors we should be considering? >> >> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >> >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >> >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >> >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >> >> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >> >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >> >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >> >> What options are missing here? >> >> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >> >> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >> >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >> >> >> >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >> To: Kevin Bankston >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >> >> >> >> A few typos: >> >> >> >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >> >> >> >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >> >> >> >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >> >> >> >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 14:03:28 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:03:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7D064E96-215E-4DE3-8AAD-04C75E7812B1@gmail.com> I think this is the best way to go. I can work on this this week, and check with Gene and Kevin here in DC. I can deliver in person if necessary. We can also email to every congress email if a best bits sender is set. C Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is a great approach. > > avri > > On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" >> >> Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" >> >> My 2 cents >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >> I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. >> >> I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). >> >> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >>> >>> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >>> >>> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >>> >>> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >>> • Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >>> • Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >>> • Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >>> Are there other factors we should be considering? >>> >>> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >>> >>> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >>> >>> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >>> >>> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >>> >>> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >>> >>> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >>> >>> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >>> >>> What options are missing here? >>> >>> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >>> >>> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >>> >>> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >>> >>> >>> >>> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >>> To: Kevin Bankston >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A few typos: >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >>> >>> >>> >>> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 14:04:46 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:04:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224CFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224CFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5B3F2BBC-C79E-4AC7-A9B4-79FBE6322A5B@gmail.com> Shoul we deliver this at the White House also? I can ask folks there the best way to do this Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Agreed re 'Best Bits Coalition' as sender; > > and with Gene on having a short list of locally reachable contact points/orgs/individuals also listed for follow-up. > > "I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization)." > > Now my 1 cent: > An instant/flash mob cross-org press conference same day of release ( 4pm tomorrow?), especially if there is a rainbow coalition of distinctly international orgs + US orgs on hand to field the few questions, maybe is showy enough by giving the media a photo op, to get some level of coverage. Time to turn up the pr to maybe help get Congress to register receipt of letter? > > Lee > > > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:48 PM > To: Best Bits > Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > Hi, > > I think this is a great approach. > > avri > > On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" >> >> Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" >> >> My 2 cents >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >> I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. >> >> I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). >> >> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >>> >>> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >>> >>> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >>> >>> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >>> • Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >>> • Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >>> • Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >>> Are there other factors we should be considering? >>> >>> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >>> >>> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >>> >>> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >>> >>> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >>> >>> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >>> >>> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >>> >>> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >>> >>> What options are missing here? >>> >>> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >>> >>> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >>> >>> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >>> >>> >>> >>> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >>> To: Kevin Bankston >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A few typos: >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >>> >>> >>> >>> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 14:12:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:12:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224CFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F3504D5-60A6-466B-8DB0-41E9A20C7603@gmail.com> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224CFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <02ab01ce6abd$08500c30$18f02490$@gmail.com> What about delivering this to the UN? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:03 PM To: Avri Doria; Best Bits Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Agreed re 'Best Bits Coalition' as sender; and with Gene on having a short list of locally reachable contact points/orgs/individuals also listed for follow-up. "I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization)." Now my 1 cent: An instant/flash mob cross-org press conference same day of release ( 4pm tomorrow?), especially if there is a rainbow coalition of distinctly international orgs + US orgs on hand to field the few questions, maybe is showy enough by giving the media a photo op, to get some level of coverage. Time to turn up the pr to maybe help get Congress to register receipt of letter? Lee ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:48 PM To: Best Bits Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Hi, I think this is a great approach. avri On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" > > My 2 cents > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >> >> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >> >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >> >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >> . Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >> . Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >> . Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply Are there >> other factors we should be considering? >> >> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >> >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >> >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >> >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >> >> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand >> recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be >> problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not >> involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the >> capacity to respond >> >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >> >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >> >> What options are missing here? >> >> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >> >> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >> >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer's trust on all American (.) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >> >> >> >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at >> the end. family stuff kept me off the Internet all day. but whoever >> did it did a great job. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] >> On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >> To: Kevin Bankston >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society >> letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >> >> >> >> A few typos: >> >> >> >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to "allegations" above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >> >> >> >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >> >> >> >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >> >> >> >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 >> Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 14:21:26 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:21:26 -0400 Subject: [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Message-ID: Those in Tunis can deliver to State in person. Ine can be sent to Obama -------- Original message -------- From: Carolina Date: To: Lee W McKnight Cc: Avri Doria ,Best Bits ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Shoul we deliver this at the White House also? I can ask folks there the best way to do this Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Agreed re 'Best Bits Coalition' as sender; > > and with Gene on having a short list of locally reachable contact points/orgs/individuals also listed for follow-up. > > "I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information.  Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization)." > > Now my 1 cent: > An instant/flash mob cross-org press conference same day of release ( 4pm tomorrow?), especially if there is a rainbow coalition of distinctly international orgs + US orgs on hand to field the few questions, maybe is showy enough by giving the media a photo op, to get some level of coverage.  Time to turn up the pr to maybe help get Congress to register receipt of letter? > > Lee > > > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:48 PM > To: Best Bits > Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > Hi, > > I think this is a great approach. > > avri > > On 16 Jun 2013, at 13:28, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Thinking it might be good to send as  BEST BITS COALITION of  International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" >> >> Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" >> >> My 2 cents >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >> I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. >> >> I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information.  Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). >> >> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >>> >>> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >>> >>> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >>> >>> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >>>     • Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >>>     • Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >>>     • Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >>> Are there other factors we should be considering? >>> >>> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >>> >>> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >>> >>> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >>> >>> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >>> >>> 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >>> >>> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >>> >>> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >>> >>> What options are missing here? >>> >>> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >>> >>> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >>> >>> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >>> >>> >>> >>> Otherwise great job everyone.  Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >>> To: Kevin Bankston >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A few typos: >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)"  I assume we want to cut the parenthetical.  To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >>> >>> >>> >>> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted.  The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >>> >>> >>> >>> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 14:41:03 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:41:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Message-ID: +1 with a few groups available for follow up by phone/email -------- Original message -------- From: Nnenna Nwakanma Date: To: Gene Kimmelman Cc: Deborah Brown ,michael gurstein ,Jeremy Malcolm ,Kevin Bankston ,"" ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA Thinking it might be good to send as  BEST BITS COALITION of  International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" My 2 cents Nnenna On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information.  Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: Hi all,  I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group.  From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want.  Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply Are there other factors we should be considering? Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree.  1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. upside: we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. downside: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. upside: reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. downside: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. upside: has recognition in Congress.downside: Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. 4) Send from ACLU: upside: they've got the system and name brand recognition. downside: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond 5) Send from the Web Foundation. upside: they're international and well established. downside: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. What options are missing here? I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. All the best,  Deborah  On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies"   Otherwise great job everyone.  Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job…   M   From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM To: Kevin Bankston Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement   On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: A few typos:   Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)"  I assume we want to cut the parenthetical.  To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"?   Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed"   Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted.  The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation".     Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council.   --  Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.   -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.     -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Sun Jun 16 16:43:44 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:43:44 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BE2380.80904@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks Nnenna - a great suggestion Joy On 17/06/2013 6:41 a.m., genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > +1 with a few groups available for follow up by phone/email > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: > To: Gene Kimmelman > Cc: Deborah Brown ,michael gurstein ,Jeremy Malcolm ,Kevin Bankston ,"" ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" > > My 2 cents > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized unless someone can just send it through an existing list. > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to the group. >> >> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we want. >> >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? >> >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: >> >> * Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) >> * Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group working on this >> * Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply >> >> */Are there other factors we should be considering?/ >> * >> >> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to disagree. >> >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. *upside: *we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. *downside*: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. >> >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: *reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. *downside*: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? >> >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. *upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: *Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. >> >> 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system and name brand recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond >> >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're international and well established. *downside*: not sure about their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. >> >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition. >> >> /*What options are missing here?*/ >> >> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. >> >> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? >> >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" >> >> >> >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:*webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM >> *To:* Kevin Bankston >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; webwewant at googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston > wrote: >> >> >> >> A few typos: >> >> >> >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? >> >> >> >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" >> >> >> >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". >> >> >> >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRviOAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqgcgH/i+i7Ko0KRBzy4OArOY9uabc RJdP+C0Mp7kdq7TlXNFUay/iCSJVpfrCWQ/bEqkG8/dvodPnhCDjSB9IxOxMEuza KtTzIEqdm5e51YdBJo1BkiwGRn4M+rLduLGWARGeqoGuUdDqeRNFK/uT6/4p6HTw sJw5xOSFjvbKd+RfWnj4HVKYWilmLlhhq9HK5L5jLCAeaQCaOxQYb2cUshPpxtEJ xqkPUsv9n4/Mu95i2bxBwm4N98OyCAasiSAm8SftVJeLNneYrTNFCXgJoVnDlzqT awY42fMH0jjv3yiz8liO37Gn5eDZMc4QA0/cd422ObXys67P0fN3YkuRf2knhFQ= =0Yz+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Jun 16 20:37:13 2013 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:37:13 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/06/2013, at 11:36 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. > 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. > 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. > 4) Send from ACLU: > 5) Send from the Web Foundation. It doesn't really matter which the sending address, but I suggest to try in the order given above, or, as Gene said, there is no reason why it can't have more than one sender address. I've created steering at lists.bestbits.net and will work with Andrew to accelerate the process of forming the steering group to receive from that address today. On 17/06/2013, at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What about delivering this to the UN? Not appropriate for this letter in my view, but we need to work on the next steps from the delivery of the previous letter. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 17 00:53:34 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:53:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: <51BE2380.80904@apc.org> References: <51BE2380.80904@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I just got confirmation from the ACLU that they can send out our letter tomorrow, and can input any email address/name as the sender. Though it may be obvious, they advised, "It's best for it to come from a real person since occassionally staff write back with questions." I like Nnenna's and Gene's suggestions that a Best Bits "member" with recognition in Congress send it on behalf of the coalition, and that a few groups be listed as available for follow up by phone/email. I can volunteer my colleague Katherine Maher, who is DC-based, as one of the contacts for follow up. Are there any volunteers to be the "sender"? If everyone's on board with this approach and we still want to get this out on Monday, we need to: - Finalize the text of the email to Congress - Identify a sender - Identify groups available for follow up Anything else I'm missing? It's getting late in NY, but I'm happy to pick this up in the morning. Best regards, Deborah On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > thanks Nnenna - a great suggestion > Joy > > On 17/06/2013 6:41 a.m., genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > > +1 with a few groups available for follow up by phone/email > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > Date: > > To: Gene Kimmelman > > Cc: Deborah Brown ,michael > gurstein ,Jeremy Malcolm > ,Kevin Bankston > ," " > , > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of > international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > > > > > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of > International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress > and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence + > national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come via > the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory > "members" > > > > My 2 cents > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > > > I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative > ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized > unless someone can just send it through an existing list. > > > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization of > who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and email > contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress -- so long as > the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of > Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more information. > Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide responses, > and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric to the substance of > the letter (and speak separately for their own organization). > > > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to > Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out and > we now have a few options to bring back to the group. > >> > >> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties > Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through their > backend and they could route it through whatever email sending address we > want. > >> > >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? > >> > >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should > be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are: > >> > >> * Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) > >> * Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group > working on this > >> * Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply > >> > >> */Are there other factors we should be considering?/ > > >> * > >> > >> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some > initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to > disagree. > >> > >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. > *upside: *we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers. > *downside*: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time. > >> > >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: *reflective of > actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. *downside*: > minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure to > manage response or follow up? > >> > >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. > *upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: *Are EFF/CDT perceived as > int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need to check on their > capacity to respond. > >> > >> 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system and name brand > recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and it may be problematic > to have the letter delivered by a group that was not involved in its > drafting. Would also have to see if they have the capacity to respond > >> > >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're international > and well established. *downside*: not sure about their recognition in > Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up. > > >> > >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have > the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in Congress, > however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an international org., > I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on > behalf of this coalition. > >> > >> /*What options are missing here?*/ > > >> > >> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned > organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in. > >> > >> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly > we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or relevant > committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate? > >> > >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. > >> > >> All the best, > >> Deborah > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein < > gurstein at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> > >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 > "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide > worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" > >> > >> > >> > >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to > edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but whoever > did it did a great job… > >> > >> > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> > >> *From:*webwewant at googlegroups.com > [ > mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com > ] *On > Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM > >> *To:* Kevin Bankston > >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > webwewant at googlegroups.com > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil > society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> A few typos: > >> > >> > >> > >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the > case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent > with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the > parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change > "clearly" to "apparently"? > >> > >> > >> > >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > >> > >> > >> > >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to > be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights > violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights > violation". > >> > >> > >> > >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one > to the UN Human Rights Council. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> Senior Policy Officer > >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > consumers* > > >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > >> > >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >> > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Deborah Brown > >> Policy Analyst > >> Access | AccessNow.org > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >> @deblebrown > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRviOAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqgcgH/i+i7Ko0KRBzy4OArOY9uabc > RJdP+C0Mp7kdq7TlXNFUay/iCSJVpfrCWQ/bEqkG8/dvodPnhCDjSB9IxOxMEuza > KtTzIEqdm5e51YdBJo1BkiwGRn4M+rLduLGWARGeqoGuUdDqeRNFK/uT6/4p6HTw > sJw5xOSFjvbKd+RfWnj4HVKYWilmLlhhq9HK5L5jLCAeaQCaOxQYb2cUshPpxtEJ > xqkPUsv9n4/Mu95i2bxBwm4N98OyCAasiSAm8SftVJeLNneYrTNFCXgJoVnDlzqT > awY42fMH0jjv3yiz8liO37Gn5eDZMc4QA0/cd422ObXys67P0fN3YkuRf2knhFQ= > =0Yz+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jam at globalilluminators.org Fri Jun 7 13:30:21 2013 From: jam at globalilluminators.org (jam at globalilluminators.org) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:30:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130607123021.m3894hxjnkw4o88o@webmail.opentransfer.com> Hi, Please add my endorsement on behalf of Global Illuminators International. regards -- Farooq Ahmed Jam Executive Director Global Illuminators Contact: +60102546571 E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org Quoting Deborah Brown : > Hi Nnnenna, and all, > > Since the text is not up on the Best Bits site yet, the plan is to endorse > by mail for now. Then if Jeremy posts it to bestbits.net, he will notify > the list and we can transfer the email endorsement to the site. > > Apologies for confusion! > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> >> Hi Joana >> >> Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over. The text is >> not yet up on bestbits.net >> >> Or are we endorsing by mail? >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open >>> participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public >>> Policy Issues. >>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and >>> adopted all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at >>> the working document. I hope you are happy with it >>> >>> >>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open >>> for endorsements at the platform. >>> >>> >>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >>> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >>> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >>> us to upload the text? >>> >>> >>> Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. >>> But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention >>> the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's >>> meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of >>> course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? >>> >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> >>> Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group >>> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues >>> >>> We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, >>> which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address >>> some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and >>> encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on >>> enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband >>> connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; >>> supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and >>> operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. >>> >>> We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and >>> inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We >>> believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the >>> willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing >>> about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. >>> >>> Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, >>> transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of >>> establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. >>> >>> We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder >>> participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the >>> ITU's work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU >>> Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group >>> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) "be >>> open to all stakeholders in the [same] format" as the IEG. We encourage him >>> to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample >>> consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to >>> the work of CWG-Internet. >>> >>> Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. >>> We note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which >>> proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open >>> CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting >>> meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, >>> and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the >>> contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all >>> documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary >>> 2014. >>> >>> We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet (which, >>> we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider >>> Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and >>> multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should >>> continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder >>> Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their >>> functions. >>> >>> But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not >>> sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, >>> sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >>> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >>> participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a >>> meaningful civil society participation. >>> >>> In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and >>> contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved >>> upon. >>> >>> - >>> >>> Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before the >>> final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the >>> IEG with a >>> civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. >>> Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil >>> society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able >>> to attend >>> in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of >>> financial means to >>> support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in >>> these contexts has no external means of financial support. >>> - >>> >>> Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU >>> were not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a >>> truly inclusive process. >>> - >>> >>> Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above >>> mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information >>> documents for >>> the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a >>> statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all >>> regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. >>> - >>> >>> It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation >>> rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. >>> >>> >>> Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more >>> participation from all stakeholders around the world. >>> >>> In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council >>> Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. >>> - >>> >>> Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official >>> documents for consideration. >>> - >>> >>> Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only >>> remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. >>> >>> >>> But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we >>> would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work >>> with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking >>> advantage of those bodies' expertise and not attempting to duplicate their >>> functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as >>> ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with >>> non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). >>> >>> For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important >>> stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Jun 17 04:11:26 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:11:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Dear all All sounds good from here (in Europe). As a follow-up and to keep up the publicizing dimension we can publicize both letters coming out of this mobilization (to the Un HRC and US Congress) this week in Lisbon at the Euro DIG. IRP have a workshop in rights and responsibilities for internet futures and a flash panel around this current controversy so in this venue, with industry and government reps there we can underscore the points being made. All the best with the send-off Best MF From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 17 June 2013 01:37 To: Deborah Brown Cc: michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA On 16/06/2013, at 11:36 PM, Deborah Brown > wrote: 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. 4) Send from ACLU: 5) Send from the Web Foundation. It doesn't really matter which the sending address, but I suggest to try in the order given above, or, as Gene said, there is no reason why it can't have more than one sender address. I've created steering at lists.bestbits.net and will work with Andrew to accelerate the process of forming the steering group to receive from that address today. On 17/06/2013, at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: What about delivering this to the UN? Not appropriate for this letter in my view, but we need to work on the next steps from the delivery of the previous letter. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 17 06:56:56 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:56:56 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements Message-ID: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here is a suggested covering email: --- covering email begins --- Dear Senators and Representatives, We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the US government. For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the endorsing organisations are at your service: Deborah Brown, Access ph: xxxx email: deborah at accessnow.org Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners ph: xxxx email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International ph: +60 3 7726 1599 email: jeremy at ciroap.org Joana Varon, FGV ph: xxxx email: joana at varonferraz.com --- covering email ends --- -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Best Bits letter to Congress.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83559 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From arthit at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:04:41 2013 From: arthit at gmail.com (Arthit Suriyawongkul) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:04:41 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, Last minute. Thai Netizen Network from Thailand. Thanks, Art -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:08:48 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:08:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements Message-ID: <4e71cyrsoggb5ys6bt83pa9r.1371467328012@email.android.com> I am happy to be listed for Global Partners.  Since Andrew is tied up in Tunis (many hours ahead of U.S. timezones), it will be easier for me to handle inquiries.  -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: Best Bits Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com,IRP Subject: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 endorsements that we now have.  If any last-minute endorsements are posted online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions).  Here is a suggested covering email: --- covering email begins --- Dear Senators and Representatives, We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the US government. For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the endorsing organisations are at your service: Deborah Brown, Access ph: xxxx email: deborah at accessnow.org Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners ph: xxxx email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International ph: +60 3 7726 1599 email: jeremy at ciroap.org Joana Varon, FGV ph: xxxx email: joana at varonferraz.com --- covering email ends --- -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 17 07:26:41 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:26:41 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I'm also fine with the suggestions. Thanks for moving further with this and sorry for being away in the thread for a while. One topic of concern: Do we have any media strategy to also increase the outreach of this action? Maybe this could be one of the focus of the meeting today here in Tunis as well. best joana On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all**** > > ** ** > > All sounds good from here (in Europe). As a follow-up and to keep up the > publicizing dimension we can publicize both letters coming out of this > mobilization (to the Un HRC and US Congress) this week in Lisbon at the > Euro DIG. IRP have a workshop in rights and responsibilities for internet > futures and a flash panel around this current controversy so in this venue, > with industry and government reps there we can underscore the points being > made. **** > > ** ** > > All the best with the send-off**** > > ** ** > > Best**** > > MF**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* 17 June 2013 01:37 > *To:* Deborah Brown > *Cc:* michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for > delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA**** > > ** ** > > On 16/06/2013, at 11:36 PM, Deborah Brown wrote:** > ** > > > > **** > > 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW.**** > > 2) send it from a Best Bits email address.**** > > 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT.**** > > 4) Send from ACLU:**** > > 5) Send from the Web Foundation.**** > > ** ** > > It doesn't really matter which the sending address, but I suggest to try > in the order given above, or, as Gene said, there is no reason why it can't > have more than one sender address. I've created > steering at lists.bestbits.net and will work with Andrew to accelerate the > process of forming the steering group to receive from that address today.* > *** > > ** ** > > On 17/06/2013, at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote:*** > * > > > > **** > > What about delivering this to the UN?**** > > ** ** > > Not appropriate for this letter in my view, but we need to work on the > next steps from the delivery of the previous letter.**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com**** > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek**** > > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 17 07:29:26 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:29:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51BEF316.5050708@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Jeremy Would be happy to have APC listed for follow up info with our South Africa address and suggest you add someone Anja or Parminder for South Asia so we have better regional spread. Anriette On 17/06/2013 12:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 > endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are > posted online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. > > Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a > contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the > draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). > Here is a suggested covering email: > > --- covering email begins --- > > Dear Senators and Representatives, > > We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, > who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. > > We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, > expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of > Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US > citizens by the US government. > > For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the > endorsing organisations are at your service: > > Deborah Brown, Access > ph: xxxx > email: deborah at accessnow.org > > Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners > ph: xxxx > email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > > Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International > ph: +60 3 7726 1599 > email: jeremy at ciroap.org > > Joana Varon, FGV > ph: xxxx > email: joana at varonferraz.com > > --- covering email ends --- > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRvvMVAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewcXUH/2UCow1zddMIUOVDmwjrPWS7 P7o+ho5M60pwP1bOY7VF1mYJE0hW37cm5WhXl0MDKvsciaFUkLVaEBZuxxewK5N7 ohdgRjQ6Muq2Bh353qgkgwKcN4v8N7pnIpAcrDT9VJg2jctyWfaD+6BE6jIusuBM jivWnRc0/zRi8lwha1w0yybmtYAb9u23LFJokLHngRjnHnEg8ckYoORNymCXaaVP aGahJxEv8ntVVqAPac3Z0WyIrek3jKjzwsh0MKcXNWPtcqwVZ432GTX0izAyQdfE hpuw+s2LbRPpwt14x1H4b6ilivesm+Vy/obS10WWxUtWyARvdLh/2xptBcBCXIs= =g8HP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:31:51 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:31:51 -0400 Subject: [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Those in Tunis should discuss when to start talking publicly about this among the participants; from my perspective, it is good to "Get the word out" and not hold back, even if this is being officially sent in the near future (Tuesday, US time) -- I would take advantage of whatever officials and press you can start engaging. Also, I'm happy to try to get this to the attention of top Washington Post (and other DC key press) reporters whenever you like, to maximize attention in the US Congress/White House. On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm also fine with the suggestions. Thanks for moving further with this and sorry for being away in the thread for a while. > > One topic of concern: Do we have any media strategy to also increase the outreach of this action? Maybe this could be one of the focus of the meeting today here in Tunis as well. > > best > > joana > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all > > > > All sounds good from here (in Europe). As a follow-up and to keep up the publicizing dimension we can publicize both letters coming out of this mobilization (to the Un HRC and US Congress) this week in Lisbon at the Euro DIG. IRP have a workshop in rights and responsibilities for internet futures and a flash panel around this current controversy so in this venue, with industry and government reps there we can underscore the points being made. > > > > All the best with the send-off > > > > Best > > MF > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: 17 June 2013 01:37 > To: Deborah Brown > Cc: michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > > > On 16/06/2013, at 11:36 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > > > > 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW. > > 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. > > 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or CDT. > > 4) Send from ACLU: > > 5) Send from the Web Foundation. > > > > It doesn't really matter which the sending address, but I suggest to try in the order given above, or, as Gene said, there is no reason why it can't have more than one sender address. I've created steering at lists.bestbits.net and will work with Andrew to accelerate the process of forming the steering group to receive from that address today. > > > > On 17/06/2013, at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > What about delivering this to the UN? > > > > Not appropriate for this letter in my view, but we need to work on the next steps from the delivery of the previous letter. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:32:23 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:32:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <51BEF316.5050708@apc.org> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> <51BEF316.5050708@apc.org> Message-ID: <45882860-A5EF-4D9B-BF7F-A341B959401B@gmail.com> those are great additions! On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Jeremy > > Would be happy to have APC listed for follow up info with our South > Africa address and suggest you add someone Anja or Parminder for South > Asia so we have better regional spread. > > Anriette > > On 17/06/2013 12:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are >> posted online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >> >> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). >> Here is a suggested covering email: >> >> --- covering email begins --- >> >> Dear Senators and Representatives, >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >> >> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of >> Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US >> citizens by the US government. >> >> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >> endorsing organisations are at your service: >> >> Deborah Brown, Access >> ph: xxxx >> email: deborah at accessnow.org >> >> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >> ph: xxxx >> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >> >> Joana Varon, FGV >> ph: xxxx >> email: joana at varonferraz.com >> >> --- covering email ends --- >> > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRvvMVAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewcXUH/2UCow1zddMIUOVDmwjrPWS7 > P7o+ho5M60pwP1bOY7VF1mYJE0hW37cm5WhXl0MDKvsciaFUkLVaEBZuxxewK5N7 > ohdgRjQ6Muq2Bh353qgkgwKcN4v8N7pnIpAcrDT9VJg2jctyWfaD+6BE6jIusuBM > jivWnRc0/zRi8lwha1w0yybmtYAb9u23LFJokLHngRjnHnEg8ckYoORNymCXaaVP > aGahJxEv8ntVVqAPac3Z0WyIrek3jKjzwsh0MKcXNWPtcqwVZ432GTX0izAyQdfE > hpuw+s2LbRPpwt14x1H4b6ilivesm+Vy/obS10WWxUtWyARvdLh/2xptBcBCXIs= > =g8HP > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Jun 17 08:05:40 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:05:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <51BE2380.80904@apc.org> Message-ID: <7C062829-A4AF-43F6-A7A7-69CDB6C4855B@cdt.org> As as Best Bits participant, I'd be happy to be the sender and/or a contact person and play traffic cop here from DC. CDT is well known in Congress and folks know we work internationally as well. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > I just got confirmation from the ACLU that they can send out our letter tomorrow, and can input any email address/name as the sender. Though it may be obvious, they advised, "It's best for it to come from a real person since occassionally staff write back with questions." > > I like Nnenna's and Gene's suggestions that a Best Bits "member" with recognition in Congress send it on behalf of the coalition, and that a few groups be listed as available for follow up by phone/email. > > I can volunteer my colleague Katherine Maher, who is DC-based, as one of the contacts for follow up. Are there any volunteers to be the "sender"? > > If everyone's on board with this approach and we still want to get this out on Monday, we need to: > Finalize the text of the email to Congress > Identify a sender > Identify groups available for follow up > Anything else I'm missing? > > It's getting late in NY, but I'm happy to pick this up in the morning. > > Best regards, > Deborah > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > thanks Nnenna - a great suggestion > Joy > > On 17/06/2013 6:41 a.m., genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > > +1 with a few groups available > for follow up by phone/email > > > > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > > Date: > > > To: Gene Kimmelman > > > Cc: Deborah Brown ,michael > gurstein ,Jeremy Malcolm > ,Kevin Bankston > ,"" > ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com > > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery > of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA > > > > > > > > > Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of > International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to > congress and "Dear Senators and Representatives" > > > > > > Upside, the "international" character is there, and the > influence + national recognition will be kept. If there is > follow-up, it will come via the COALITION representative, > supported by other Best Bits signatory "members" > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: > > > > > > I think it should be addressed to each senator and > representative ("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to > be individualized unless someone can just send it through an > existing list. > > > > > > I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a > characterization of who we are, plus any organization/individual > involved (with phone and email contact person) that desires to > field inquiries from Congress -- so long as the list isn't bigger > than 5-6 people/groups, I think that gives members of Congress a > sense of who they can reach out to for more information. > Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to provide > responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric > to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own > organization). > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of > the letter to Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press > to figure this out and we now have a few options to bring back to > the group. > > >> > > >> From what we were able to determine, the American > Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter > to Congress through their backend and they could route it through > whatever email sending address we want. > > >> > > >> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct? > > >> > > >> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what > group should be the "sender". A few factors that play into this > decision are: > > >> > > >> * Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened) > > >> * Sufficiently international/reflective of the > broad group working on this > > >> * Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media > reply > > >> > > >> */Are there other factors we should be considering?/ > > > >> * > > >> > > >> Here are a few other options (in no particular > order), with some initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add > commentary and feel free to disagree. > > >> > > >> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, > like HRW. *upside: *we'd be most likely to get the attention of > the staffers. *downside*: May not be able to get confirmation from > HRW to send it in time. > > >> > > >> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: > *reflective of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group > members. *downside*: minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best > Bits have the infrastructure to manage response or follow up? > > >> > > >> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such > as EFF or CDT. *upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: > *Are EFF/CDT perceived as int'l enough to represent this > coalition? Would also need to check on their capacity to respond. > > >> > > >> 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system > and name brand recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and > it may be problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that > was not involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they > have the capacity to respond > > >> > > >> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're > international and well established. *downside*: not sure about > their recognition in Congress. Would need to see if they have the > capacity for follow up. > > > >> > > >> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", > and we have the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our > recognition in Congress, however, is minimal, and while we > consider ourselves an international org., I can't judge whether > we're perceived as int'l enough to send the letter on behalf of > this coalition. > > >> > > >> /*What options are missing here?*/ > > > >> > > >> I realize people working for many of the > above-mentioned organizations are on these lists, so please feel > free to jump in. > > >> > > >> Another question I've raised a few times here is > *who* exactly we're planning to send the letter to? All members of > Congress? Or relevant committee members in the House of > Representatives and the Senate? > > >> > > >> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this. > > >> > > >> All the best, > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Significant typo at end of last sentence on > paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) > that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely > "companies" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I > wasn't around to edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the > Internet all day… but whoever did it did a great job… > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> M > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *From:*webwewant at googlegroups.com > > [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com > ] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy > Malcolm > > >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM > > >> *To:* Kevin Bankston > > >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > webwewant at googlegroups.com > > > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of > International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from > HRC statement > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> A few typos: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was > clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US > Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” > above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address > the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to > "apparently"? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks > that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost > certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an > almost certain human rights violation". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and > the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > >> Senior Policy Officer > > >> Consumers International | the global campaigning > voice for consumers* > > > >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, > TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > >> > > >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer > Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > >> > > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > >> > > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving > emails from it, send an email to > webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > > > >> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Deborah Brown > > >> Policy Analyst > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > > > >> @deblebrown > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRviOAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqgcgH/i+i7Ko0KRBzy4OArOY9uabc > RJdP+C0Mp7kdq7TlXNFUay/iCSJVpfrCWQ/bEqkG8/dvodPnhCDjSB9IxOxMEuza > KtTzIEqdm5e51YdBJo1BkiwGRn4M+rLduLGWARGeqoGuUdDqeRNFK/uT6/4p6HTw > sJw5xOSFjvbKd+RfWnj4HVKYWilmLlhhq9HK5L5jLCAeaQCaOxQYb2cUshPpxtEJ > xqkPUsv9n4/Mu95i2bxBwm4N98OyCAasiSAm8SftVJeLNneYrTNFCXgJoVnDlzqT > awY42fMH0jjv3yiz8liO37Gn5eDZMc4QA0/cd422ObXys67P0fN3YkuRf2knhFQ= > =0Yz+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 17 09:08:35 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:08:35 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can tweet that and the statement etc Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio station, though. I have a great face for radio. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 7 13:38:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:08:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B21AB0.1010900@itforchange.net> Rogue power can *only* be addressed by legitimate power. And legitimate power should stem from people's will. Democracy consists in creating and operating institutions that can convert people's will into *exercisable* legitimate power to resist rogue power, however inefficient such a conversion in practice may be (which needs continuous engagements for evolutionary - and sometimes revolutionary - improvements). So, the response to counter the rogue (global) power of US plus big Internet businesses is to create legitimate power vis a vis the global Internet. Refusing the existence of rogue power, or otherwise doing nothing about it, just helps propagate it. Such a stance, in my view, constitutes active politics in favour of rogue power. Simple and basic political theory, but many in the IG space seem to so often miss it... On Friday 07 June 2013 10:18 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:29 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' > systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk > > [MG>] ... > >> We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance >> and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. > so we shouldn't oppose it? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 17 09:16:11 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:46:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <5CE34203-F912-48B9-A1D4-726893D8A786@gmail.com> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> <5CE34203-F912-48B9-A1D4-726893D8A786@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm happy to be added as a contact person. My number is +91 9899028053. Thanks all, for taking this forward. Anja On Jun 17, 2013 1:09 PM, "Ivan Sigal" wrote: > Please add Global Voices Advocacy to the list. > > Thanks much, > > Ivan > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 > endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted > online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. > > Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a > contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the > draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here > is a suggested covering email: > > --- covering email begins --- > > Dear Senators and Representatives, > > We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, who > work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. > > We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, > expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the > US government. > > For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the > endorsing organisations are at your service: > > Deborah Brown, Access > ph: xxxx > email: deborah at accessnow.org > > Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners > ph: xxxx > email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > > Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International > ph: +60 3 7726 1599 > email: jeremy at ciroap.org > > Joana Varon, FGV > ph: xxxx > email: joana at varonferraz.com > > --- covering email ends --- > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Jun 17 10:00:00 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:00:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] 2-pager on NSA-related advocacy options and reform proposals Message-ID: <2C7487AB-42E6-49F1-8462-029846A18642@cdt.org> Hi everyone-- We at CDT threw together for GNI this little two page document describing some advocacy options and reform proposals around the NSA revelations, and thought it was worth sharing here. Obviously, we're very focused on transparency-related goals/options because we think that's where there is the most political will and the most opportunity for alliance with the companies to force meaningful action from Congress and the Executive Branch, followed by specific amendments to PATRIOT Section 215 (the provision being used to justify the court orders for all phone records). Since the companies are acting under court orders and are gagged against saying anything, they have a very strong incentive to push--and to be seen as pushing--for more transparency and more ability to speak. That's why one of my main priorities right now is to get the companies, who are somewhat at odds with each other on this issue right now (see e.g. http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/15/4432368/google-opts-out-of-fisa-disclosure-deal-made-by-facebook-and), to sit down together--with each other, and with a few representatives of civil society--to try and bang out a shared transparency agenda. I will keep this group updated as that effort proceeds, but in the meantime, public advocacy asking the companies to work together to demand more transparency--with each other and with us, as a unified front--would be incredibly helpful. Thanks, Kevin ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SUMMARY OF NSA ADVOCACY OPTIONS.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 152427 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veridiana at idec.org.br Mon Jun 17 10:21:14 2013 From: veridiana at idec.org.br (Veridiana Alimonti) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:21:14 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> <5CE34203-F912-48B9-A1D4-726893D8A786@gmail.com> Message-ID: Please Jeremy, I would like to add IDEC - Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense to the list. Thanks! 2013/6/17 Anja Kovacs > I'm happy to be added as a contact person. My number is +91 9899028053. > > Thanks all, for taking this forward. > > Anja > On Jun 17, 2013 1:09 PM, "Ivan Sigal" wrote: > >> Please add Global Voices Advocacy to the list. >> >> Thanks much, >> >> Ivan >> >> On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted >> online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >> >> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here >> is a suggested covering email: >> >> --- covering email begins --- >> >> Dear Senators and Representatives, >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >> >> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the >> US government. >> >> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >> endorsing organisations are at your service: >> >> Deborah Brown, Access >> ph: xxxx >> email: deborah at accessnow.org >> >> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >> ph: xxxx >> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >> >> Joana Varon, FGV >> ph: xxxx >> email: joana at varonferraz.com >> >> --- covering email ends --- >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From informatic.lawyer at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 09:36:39 2013 From: informatic.lawyer at gmail.com (informatic lawyer) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:36:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I proposed an additional paragraph should be consider as the penultimate paragraph, but I did in the Spanish version that was shared. I do not know if you could review it?. Ramón Mujica. 2013/6/17 Jeremy Malcolm > I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 > endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted > online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. > > Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a > contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the > draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here > is a suggested covering email: > > --- covering email begins --- > > Dear Senators and Representatives, > > We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, who > work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. > > We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, > expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the > US government. > > For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the > endorsing organisations are at your service: > > Deborah Brown, Access > ph: xxxx > email: deborah at accessnow.org > > Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners > ph: xxxx > email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > > Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International > ph: +60 3 7726 1599 > email: jeremy at ciroap.org > > Joana Varon, FGV > ph: xxxx > email: joana at varonferraz.com > > --- covering email ends --- > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 17 10:26:23 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:26:23 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 17/06/2013, at 9:36 PM, informatic lawyer wrote: > I proposed an additional paragraph should be consider as the penultimate paragraph, but I did in the Spanish version that was shared. > I do not know if you could review it?. Would like to do so, but unfortunately this would require us to go back and get approval from everyone who already endorsed, which isn't practical at this stage. Thanks to those who have sent through belated endorsements though - I've incorporated these. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 10:34:34 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:34:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Ramon, I finished and closed the spanish version last week. We cannot introduce anything different from the other translation and from the original version in english that was drafted and negotiated over many days. If anybody has a different view, pls let me know. The version I closed on spanish is at the best bits website and is the offical. I am sorry. Carolina On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:36 AM, informatic lawyer < informatic.lawyer at gmail.com> wrote: > I proposed an additional paragraph should be consider as the penultimate > paragraph, but I did in the Spanish version that was shared. > I do not know if you could review it?. > > Ramón Mujica. > > > 2013/6/17 Jeremy Malcolm > >> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted >> online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >> >> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here >> is a suggested covering email: >> >> --- covering email begins --- >> >> Dear Senators and Representatives, >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >> >> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the >> US government. >> >> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >> endorsing organisations are at your service: >> >> Deborah Brown, Access >> ph: xxxx >> email: deborah at accessnow.org >> >> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >> ph: xxxx >> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >> >> Joana Varon, FGV >> ph: xxxx >> email: joana at varonferraz.com >> >> --- covering email ends --- >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Mon Jun 17 10:36:41 2013 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:36:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy: Could you please add Public Knowledge to the list of signatories? I could not find the letter on the website and so could not endorse there. Thank you. Rashmi On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 > endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted > online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. > > Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a > contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the > draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here > is a suggested covering email: > > --- covering email begins --- > > Dear Senators and Representatives, > > We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, who > work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. > > We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, > expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the > US government. > > For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the > endorsing organisations are at your service: > > Deborah Brown, Access > ph: xxxx > email: deborah at accessnow.org > > Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners > ph: xxxx > email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > > Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International > ph: +60 3 7726 1599 > email: jeremy at ciroap.org > > Joana Varon, FGV > ph: xxxx > email: joana at varonferraz.com > > --- covering email ends --- > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 10:51:25 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:51:25 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Thematic courses in IG Message-ID: Hi everyone, Diplo is currently running a call for applications for three thematic courses in Internet governance: Privacy and Personal Data Protection, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources. You can read more about the courses from the links below. If you know anyone who might be interested, please share the call with them. Many thanks, and all the best, Ginger Call for applications: Thematic courses in Internet governance Diplo is currently running an open call for applications for the following courses, which form part of the Thematic Phase of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme : - Privacy and Personal Data Protection delves into the details of many of the global and local discussions surrounding privacy, the main instruments dealing with data protection and information privacy, their effects on national and regional regulations, emerging privacy issues such as anonymous expression, social networks, and cloud computing, the risks and challenges related to cybersecurity concerns, and the roles that companies play in the privacy protection ecosystem. - ICT Policy and Strategic Planning offers in-depth discussion of national ICT policies and strategies, development, implementation and management, e-readiness assessment and benchmarking, including the analysis of case studies. - ICT Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources (CIRS) presents topics and issues related to infrastructure and CIRs, including infrastructure development, connection costs, regulatory frameworks, IP protocols, network neutrality, the domain name system (DNS), and the roles of the main actors. Dates: The courses are conducted online over a period of ten weeks, starting on 22 July, and include one week of classroom orientation, eight weeks of dynamic class content, discussion and activities, and one week for the final assignment. Structure: Reading materials and tools for online interaction are provided through Diplo’s award-winning online classrooms. Each week, participants read and discuss the provided lecture texts through hypertext entries; the tutor and other participants read and respond to these entries, creating interaction based on the lecture texts. During the week, participants complete additional online activities (e.g. further discussion via blogs or forums or quizzes). At the end of the week, participants and tutors meet for an online chat session. Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, involving a high level of interaction. The course materials, the e-learning platform, and the working language of the course is English. Who can benefit? We encourage the following to apply: - Officials in government ministries, departments, or institutions dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice); - Researchers, academic, and postgraduate students in the IG field (e.g. in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development studies); - Civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields; - Journalists covering IG issues; and - Individuals in Internet business-related fields (e.g. ISPs, software developers). Requirements: The course is flexible, yet intensive. Applicants are required to have: - IG knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international affairs, together with basic knowledge of the Internet infrastructure; - Either completed the course Introduction to Internet Governance, or have basic knowledge of Internet governance, and privacy (for applicants for the Privacy course) or infrastructure (for applicants of the Infrastructure course); - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay assignments); - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient, although broadband is preferable); - A minimum of 7-8 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times). Fees and Scholarships: The enrolment fee for each course is €600. A limited number of partial scholarships (maximum 20%) will be offered to participants from developing and emerging countries. Participants who would like to apply for financial assistance must upload a CV and a motivation letter when applying. Join us! Apply by 1 July 2013 by completing the application form for the appropriate course:http://learn.diplomacy.edu/registration/events.php For more information about each course, click on the links above, or e-mail us at ig at diplomacy.edu. Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:15:27 2013 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:45:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, Could you please add the Society for Knowledge Commons, India as a signatory. Thanks and regards, Rishab On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Rashmi Rangnath < rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > Hi Jeremy: > > Could you please add Public Knowledge to the list of signatories? I could > not find the letter on the website and so could not endorse there. > > Thank you. > > Rashmi > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted >> online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >> >> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here >> is a suggested covering email: >> >> --- covering email begins --- >> >> Dear Senators and Representatives, >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >> >> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the >> US government. >> >> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >> endorsing organisations are at your service: >> >> Deborah Brown, Access >> ph: xxxx >> email: deborah at accessnow.org >> >> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >> ph: xxxx >> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >> >> Joana Varon, FGV >> ph: xxxx >> email: joana at varonferraz.com >> >> --- covering email ends --- >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 17 11:17:29 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:47:29 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear Gene and all, We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's some confusion about that here as well. Many thanks, Anja On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about > this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can > tweet that and the statement etc > > > Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I do > have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio station, > though. I have a great face for radio. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 3 13:49:04 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:49:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Just to add to Joana's email, I've pasted the text below for those who are having trouble accessing the Google doc or prefer not to use it. Please feel free to also send comments and edits on this thread. Looking forward to your feedback. Best, Deborah Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues [1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opinions were adopted] We are satisfied with the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that might begin to address important goals to foster a democratic environment for promoting the usage of ICTs, namely: the promotion of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), the support for an enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband connectivity, the support of IPv6 adoption in transition from IPv4, the support for capacity building for deployment of IPv6, the support for multistakeholderism in Internet Governance and the support for operationalzing processes for enhanced cooperation. We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the willingness of all stakeholders to work together, were instrumental in bringing about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. Nevertheless, more steps should be taken [if the goal is] to truly have an open, transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of establishing a clear and transparent processes for participation. [2. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF] In that context, we welcome the commitment by ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample consideration to this important step and advantages it would lend to the work of CWG-Internet. [3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals] We note the contribution of the United States of America, which proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, and ensuring documents are freely accessible. [We also note the contributions of Sweden, which propose making all documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary 2014.] We support these proposals for opening CWG-Internet [and all bodies that consider Internet-related public policy issues], to achieve open, transparent, and multistakeholder decision-making. [shall we mention Brazilian proposal?] [5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the participation has done so far. // 4. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation] But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used in a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness. If the goal is to achieve an open and inclusive debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a meaningful civil society participation. In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved upon. - Civil society was invited to join late in the process [in late January just before the final IEG meeting]. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG with a civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend in person. [Do we need to mention the challenge in securing funding that civil society faces?] - Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU were not considered for debate at the WTPF- they should have been. - Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for the meeting. [Do we want to mention the Best Bits statement specifically here?] - It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more participation from all stakeholders around the world. [6. Make some recommendations (modalities of inviting participation, remote participation, etc.)] In order to improve the multistakeholder participation we recommend: - Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders for Council Working Groups that were previously closed. [Do we want to mention that we need some advance notice? How much?] - Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official documents for consideration. - Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only remote participants to follow the debate, but also to pose questions and statements - ...what else? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Good morning. > > As we have mentioned in the previous thread at best bits list on IGF and > the Brazilian proposal on the role of States at WTPF, last Friday Deborah > and I started a draft statement on a proposal to open participation in the > Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy > Issues. Please, find the link bellow: > > > https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing > > We have followed the structure proposed by Nnenna and have tried to > address comments made in the tread. But this is just a first draft, please, > feel free to add your comments, edits, ideas and so on. Everybody is > more then welcome to edit the text and we particularly need more inputs > on the final part of it, about suggestions for recommendations on how to > maximize meaningful civil society participation. > > Also, adapting Deborah's first proposal of timeline, we believe we should > comply with the following dates, so we can deliver it to the ITU by the > beginning of ITU Council 2013: > - Preliminary draft text open for edits: 2 May- 6 June > - Finalize text for sign on: 7 June > - Send text to the SG/ITU and publish it: June 11 (beginning of ITU > Council 2013) > > We hope it suits you all. > > Have a lovely beginning of the week. > > All the best, > > Joana > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Jun 7 13:42:01 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:42:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, A number of the documents that will be considered at next week's Council meeting are now up on WCITLeaks (http://wcitleaks.org/). I've included the links for the contributions referenced in the statement below. US contribution: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf Sweden contribution on CWG-Internet: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0070!!MSW-E.pdf Sweden contribution on Plenipot 14: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0071!!MSW-E.pdf Best, Deborah On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Yep, the idea is have the endorsements from this list through email and > once it is on at the bestbits site, with the endorsements we have already > collected, we spread the link and call for support at the other lists. > On 7 Jun 2013 18:35, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > >> Hi Nnnenna, and all, >> >> Since the text is not up on the Best Bits site yet, the plan is to >> endorse by mail for now. Then if Jeremy posts it to bestbits.net, he >> will notify the list and we can transfer the email endorsement to the site. >> >> Apologies for confusion! >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Joana >>> >>> Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over. The text is >>> not yet up on bestbits.net >>> >>> Or are we endorsing by mail? >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open >>>> participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public >>>> Policy Issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and >>>> adopted all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at >>>> the working document. I hope you are happy with it >>>> >>>> >>>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>>> >>>> >>>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >>>> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >>>> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >>>> us to upload the text? >>>> >>>> >>>> Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. >>>> But we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention >>>> the existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's >>>> meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of >>>> course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you? >>>> >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> @joana_varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> >>>> >>>> Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working >>>> Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues >>>> >>>> We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, >>>> which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address >>>> some important goals to foster an environment that facilitates and >>>> encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on >>>> enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband >>>> connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6; >>>> supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and >>>> operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation. >>>> >>>> We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and >>>> inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We >>>> believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the >>>> willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing >>>> about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open, >>>> transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of >>>> establishing a clear and transparent process for participation. >>>> >>>> We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder >>>> participation in the ITU the IEG model should be carried forward into the >>>> ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU >>>> Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group >>>> on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be >>>> open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him >>>> to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample >>>> consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to >>>> the work of CWG-Internet. >>>> >>>> Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU. >>>> We note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which >>>> proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344, to open >>>> CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting >>>> meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, >>>> and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the >>>> contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all >>>> documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary >>>> 2014. >>>> >>>> We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet >>>> (which, we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider >>>> Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and >>>> multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should >>>> continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder >>>> Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their >>>> functions. >>>> >>>> But opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not >>>> sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, >>>> sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >>>> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >>>> participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a >>>> meaningful civil society participation. >>>> >>>> In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and >>>> contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved >>>> upon. >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before >>>> the final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG >>>> with a civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting. >>>> Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil >>>> society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend >>>> in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to >>>> support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in >>>> these contexts has no external means of financial support. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU >>>> were not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a >>>> truly inclusive process. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above >>>> mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for >>>> the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a >>>> statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all >>>> regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/. >>>> - >>>> >>>> It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation >>>> rights at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined. >>>> >>>> >>>> Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more >>>> participation from all stakeholders around the world. >>>> >>>> In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council >>>> Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit >>>> official documents for consideration. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only >>>> remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. >>>> >>>> >>>> But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we >>>> would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work >>>> with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking >>>> advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their >>>> functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as >>>> ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with >>>> non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). >>>> >>>> For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important >>>> stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:19:09 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:19:09 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be delivered to the Congress. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Gene and all, > > We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out here > in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only be > delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it will > be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will also be > good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's some > confusion about that here as well. > > Many thanks, > Anja > On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about >> this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can >> tweet that and the statement etc >> >> >> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I do >> have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio station, >> though. I have a great face for radio. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 17 11:22:59 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? Deborah On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public > whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be > delivered to the Congress. > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Dear Gene and all, >> >> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out here >> in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only be >> delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it will >> be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will also be >> good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's some >> confusion about that here as well. >> >> Many thanks, >> Anja >> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >> >>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about >>> this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can >>> tweet that and the statement etc >>> >>> >>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I do >>> have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio station, >>> though. I have a great face for radio. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:30:23 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:30:23 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: great, that makes this all easier! On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today > (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly > when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's > just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it > today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with > the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >> delivered to the Congress. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> Dear Gene and all, >>> >>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out here >>> in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only be >>> delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it will >>> be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will also be >>> good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's some >>> confusion about that here as well. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Anja >>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>> >>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about >>>> this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can >>>> tweet that and the statement etc >>>> >>>> >>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I >>>> do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:40:14 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:40:14 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: yes! On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > great, that makes this all easier! > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today >> (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly >> when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's >> just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it >> today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with >> the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: >> >>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>> delivered to the Congress. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>> >>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>> >>>> Many thanks, >>>> Anja >>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking about >>>>> this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you can >>>>> tweet that and the statement etc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I >>>>> do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 17 11:43:13 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:43:13 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Go for it, Deborah! Anja, let me know if you need any help here. best joana On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > yes! > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> great, that makes this all easier! >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today >>> (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly >>> when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's >>> just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it >>> today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with >>> the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>>> delivered to the Congress. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs < >>>> anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>>> >>>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks, >>>>> Anja >>>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking >>>>>> about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you >>>>>> can tweet that and the statement etc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. I >>>>>> do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 17 11:50:25 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:50:25 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Are we already tweeting the link? http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ its a good moment to tweet it under #Fotunis as Dan Baer (US State Dept) is in a panel now On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Go for it, Deborah! > Anja, let me know if you need any help here. > best > joana > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes! >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: >> >>> great, that makes this all easier! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today >>>> (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly >>>> when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's >>>> just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it >>>> today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with >>>> the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>>>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>>>> delivered to the Congress. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs < >>>>> anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> Anja >>>>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking >>>>>>> about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you >>>>>>> can tweet that and the statement etc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. >>>>>>> I do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>>>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 17 11:50:50 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:20:50 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarifications, everybody. Joanna and others here, shall we have quick chat in main room after the plenary finishes? Best, Anja On Jun 17, 2013 4:43 PM, "Joana Varon" wrote: > Go for it, Deborah! > Anja, let me know if you need any help here. > best > joana > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes! >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: >> >>> great, that makes this all easier! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress today >>>> (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know exactly >>>> when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text now. It's >>>> just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to send it >>>> today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the group with >>>> the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to everyone? >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>>>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>>>> delivered to the Congress. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs < >>>>> anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> Anja >>>>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking >>>>>>> about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you >>>>>>> can tweet that and the statement etc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. >>>>>>> I do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>>>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jochai at accessnow.org Mon Jun 17 11:52:10 2013 From: jochai at accessnow.org (Jochai Ben-Avie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:52:10 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Sounds good to me. Talk soon. Cheers, Jochai On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks for the clarifications, everybody. > > Joanna and others here, shall we have quick chat in main room after the > plenary finishes? > > Best, > Anja > On Jun 17, 2013 4:43 PM, "Joana Varon" wrote: > >> Go for it, Deborah! >> Anja, let me know if you need any help here. >> best >> joana >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> yes! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> great, that makes this all easier! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress >>>>> today (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know >>>>> exactly when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text >>>>> now. It's just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to >>>>> send it today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the >>>>> group with the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to >>>>> everyone? >>>>> Deborah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>>>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>>>>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>>>>> delivered to the Congress. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs < >>>>>> anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>>>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>>>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>>>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>>>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>>>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>> Anja >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking >>>>>>>> about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you >>>>>>>> can tweet that and the statement etc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for that. >>>>>>>> I do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local radio >>>>>>>> station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>> @deblebrown >>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 17 12:02:14 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:02:14 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [webwewant] Re: [bestbits] Re: Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FADF8A1@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Oui On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jochai Ben-Avie wrote: > Sounds good to me. Talk soon. > Cheers, > Jochai > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarifications, everybody. >> >> Joanna and others here, shall we have quick chat in main room after the >> plenary finishes? >> >> Best, >> Anja >> On Jun 17, 2013 4:43 PM, "Joana Varon" wrote: >> >>> Go for it, Deborah! >>> Anja, let me know if you need any help here. >>> best >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> yes! >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> great, that makes this all easier! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know the plan is still to send the letter to Congress >>>>>> today (Monday). The ACLU said they could do that for us, but I don't know >>>>>> exactly when it will go out yet, as we are just finalizing the email text >>>>>> now. It's just before 11:30 EDT now, so I think it's still realistic to >>>>>> send it today. Once we have the email text finalized, I can update the >>>>>> group with the exact time we expect it to go out. Does that sound okay to >>>>>> everyone? >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gene Kimmelman < >>>>>> genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry if I confused anyone! I'm happy for this to be made public >>>>>>> whenever the groups wants; I referred to Tuesday as the day it would be >>>>>>> delivered to the Congress. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Anja Kovacs < >>>>>>> anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Gene and all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've been exploring a few ways to get news about the statement out >>>>>>>> here in Tunis, but have been confused by Gene's message that it will only >>>>>>>> be delivered on Tuesday. Could you please clarify, also at which time it >>>>>>>> will be delivered? Apologies if I have missed any communication. It will >>>>>>>> also be good to know who's finally going to present the statement. There's >>>>>>>> some confusion about that here as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>>>> Anja >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2013 2:08 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17/06/2013, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would also be great if Jeremy did a Video on You Tube talking >>>>>>>>> about this statement for like 3 minutes and link it to the website and you >>>>>>>>> can tweet that and the statement etc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nah, I'm sure we can find someone more photogenic than me for >>>>>>>>> that. I do have a radio interview on this later in the week for a local >>>>>>>>> radio station, though. I have a great face for radio. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>>>>>>> consumers* >>>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >> > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Jun 17 13:12:44 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:12:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] single PDF of NSA-related bills in Congress plus redlines References: <9553D21C-BAF3-435D-A559-A235290BE5C4@cdt.org> Message-ID: <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> Hi everyone--This is probably a bit in the weeds for many of you but FYI, here's a single PDF prepared by one of our industrious interns that has all 4 of the bills we've seen so far and redlines showing what they do. Note that this includes a Wyden/Udall bill that I failed to include in the 2 pager sent earlier. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech Begin forwarded message: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Collection of bills amending 50 U.S.C. ? 1861 of FISA.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3165524 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:14:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:14:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <081c01ce63b3$48175eb0$d8461c10$@gmail.com> Tks, I can see why that might be useful in the US for US folks but how is it going to impact on the US Internet surveillance outside of the US (or Internet surveillance by others on their own citizens or citizens of other countries... or surveillance by other countries of their own citizens using US information... and so on... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From tisrael at cippic.ca Mon Jun 17 16:49:25 2013 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:49:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] single PDF of NSA-related bills in Congress plus redlines In-Reply-To: <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> References: <9553D21C-BAF3-435D-A559-A235290BE5C4@cdt.org> <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51BF7655.1080500@cippic.ca> Out of curiousity, is anyone looking at 1881a? Or is all the focus on 1861.... Best, Tamir On 6/17/2013 1:12 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hi everyone--This is probably a bit in the weeds for many of you but > FYI, here's a single PDF prepared by one of our industrious interns > that has all 4 of the bills we've seen so far and redlines showing > what they do. Note that this includes a Wyden/Udall bill that I > failed to include in the 2 pager sent earlier. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > Begin forwarded message: > >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Jun 17 17:50:30 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:50:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] single PDF of NSA-related bills in Congress plus redlines In-Reply-To: <51BF7655.1080500@cippic.ca> References: <9553D21C-BAF3-435D-A559-A235290BE5C4@cdt.org> <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> <51BF7655.1080500@cippic.ca> Message-ID: Sadly, General consensus on the Hill is that they need to shake more information loose before there is clear reason or political will to re-open FAA. Sent via mobile On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Tamir Israel wrote: > Out of curiousity, is anyone looking at 1881a? Or is all the focus on 1861.... > > Best, > Tamir > > On 6/17/2013 1:12 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> >> Hi everyone--This is probably a bit in the weeds for many of you but FYI, here's a single PDF prepared by one of our industrious interns that has all 4 of the bills we've seen so far and redlines showing what they do. Note that this includes a Wyden/Udall bill that I failed to include in the 2 pager sent earlier. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 17 18:21:13 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:21:13 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] single PDF of NSA-related bills in Congress plus redlines In-Reply-To: References: <9553D21C-BAF3-435D-A559-A235290BE5C4@cdt.org> <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> <51BF7655.1080500@cippic.ca> Message-ID: <51BF8BD9.1080805@eff.org> Hi all If you want to understand the details of US law regarding the rights (or no rights) of Internet users outside the United States, I suggest to read the latest article CIPPIC and EFF just published. I suggest to read it in these order 1. U.S. Foreign Intelligence: From Carte Blanche Surveillance to Weak [Domestic] Protections https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/foreign-surveillance-history-privacy-erosions 2. An International Perspective on FISA: No Protections, Little Oversight https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/modern-foreign-surveillance-legal-perspective Best, Katitza On 6/17/13 2:50 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Sadly, General consensus on the Hill is that they need to shake more > information loose before there is clear reason or political will to > re-open FAA. > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Tamir Israel > wrote: > >> Out of curiousity, is anyone looking at 1881a? Or is all the focus on >> 1861.... >> >> Best, >> Tamir >> >> On 6/17/2013 1:12 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> Hi everyone--This is probably a bit in the weeds for many of you but >>> FYI, here's a single PDF prepared by one of our industrious interns >>> that has all 4 of the bills we've seen so far and redlines showing >>> what they do. Note that this includes a Wyden/Udall bill that I >>> failed to include in the 2 pager sent earlier. >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tisrael at cippic.ca Mon Jun 17 18:36:55 2013 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:36:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] single PDF of NSA-related bills in Congress plus redlines In-Reply-To: References: <9553D21C-BAF3-435D-A559-A235290BE5C4@cdt.org> <8D8546DD-7F63-4FC0-89AD-D3911FF883D7@cdt.org> <51BF7655.1080500@cippic.ca> Message-ID: <51BF8F87.301@cippic.ca> Ok, thanks. Fixing the business records provision is a positive step nonetheless.. On 6/17/2013 5:50 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Sadly, General consensus on the Hill is that they need to shake more > information loose before there is clear reason or political will to > re-open FAA. > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Tamir Israel > wrote: > >> Out of curiousity, is anyone looking at 1881a? Or is all the focus on >> 1861.... >> >> Best, >> Tamir >> >> On 6/17/2013 1:12 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> Hi everyone--This is probably a bit in the weeds for many of you but >>> FYI, here's a single PDF prepared by one of our industrious interns >>> that has all 4 of the bills we've seen so far and redlines showing >>> what they do. Note that this includes a Wyden/Udall bill that I >>> failed to include in the 2 pager sent earlier. >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 17 23:37:24 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:37:24 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you object. So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in Geneva. All the best, Deborah On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar wrote: > Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide coalition of > organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter appropriate for all > countries that are possibly involved in extracting surveillance data > obtained through indiscriminate means, and submit a localized version > (referencing that country) to each of the respective governments, still > bearing the signature of the group of organizations. > So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific effect these > actions have on citizens in another country, 1) asking the government in > question about its involvement in a program as described above; 2) urging > the government to verify by what means information they receive from > another state has been obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from > using information obtained by means violating the human rights of its > citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct toward its > citizens the government is bound by human rights principles as well as its > own laws, protecting the individual against intrusion by its government and > operating on a basis of presumed innocence. > > "Violations supported by you affect us all." > > > > > On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within > governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is > within nations, behind closed doors. > > The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is > the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. > > Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country > advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the > public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools > available. > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three > requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested > in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests > forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and > those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all > are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to > governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice > on crafting the recommendations. > > - convening a special session to examine this case > - supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new > General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological > advancements, and, > - requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > - formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on > surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human > rights standards, and, > - examines the implications of this case in in the light of the > Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Warm regards, > Deborah > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > >> ++1 >> This is excellent >> Shaila >> >> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* >> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> * >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen >> *To:* Deborah Brown >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; " >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> >> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases >> Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >> >> Dear all >> >> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > Thanks Joana! >> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf >> of >> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make >> interventions >> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We >> have >> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for >> the >> > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session >> 1500 >> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the >> statement on >> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> > >> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >> > confirmation email and click the link. >> > >> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >> > >> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 >> hours >> > across many time zones. >> > >> > Best, >> > Deborah >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short >> period of >> >> time. This was amazing! >> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> >> Please, let's spread it! >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >> >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >> anriette at apc.org>wrote: >> >> >> >>> Dear all >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >>> >> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >> >>> names. >> >>> >> >>> Best >> >>> >> >>> Anriette >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> >>>> Dear all >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 from me. >> >>>> >> >>>> MF >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> >>>> >> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop >> of >> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>> >> >>>> Joy >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> >>>> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi All >> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do >> it?.) >> >>>> >> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> >>>> >> >>>>> Best, parminder >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out >> to >> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >> organizations >> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> >>>> get this finalized. >> >>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>> Deborah >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> >>> case >> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and >> non-US >> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally >> dominant >> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must >> also >> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the >> human >> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >> Internet >> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to >> foreign >> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the >> Internet. >> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological >> advancements >> >>>>>> [1] >> >>> >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >>>>>> [2] >> >>> >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >>>>>> ENDS >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always >> be >> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >> facts >> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >> presentation >> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an >> outline? >> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> >>>> consumers* >> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> >>>> | >> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >>>> . Don't >> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> >>>> . >> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> >>>>>> @deblebrown >> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >>>>> @joana_varon >> >>> -- >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >>> www.apc.org >> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> >>> south africa >> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <%2B27%2011%20726%201692> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> IRP mailing list >> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >>> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <%2B27%2011%20726%201692> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing listIRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.orghttp://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 17 23:49:23 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:49:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi all, A quick update on the letter to Congress- the ACLU was not able to send it out on Monday, but they said that they will be able to send it out first thing Tuesday morning EDT. I will let you know as soon as I get confirmation that it has gone out. Sincere apologies for any confusion. Did those of you in Tunis have the chance to discuss press strategy? Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Rishab Bailey wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Could you please add the Society for Knowledge Commons, India as a > signatory. > > Thanks and regards, > Rishab > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Rashmi Rangnath < > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy: >> >> Could you please add Public Knowledge to the list of signatories? I could >> not find the letter on the website and so could not endorse there. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Rashmi >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >>> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted >>> online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >>> >>> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >>> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >>> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here >>> is a suggested covering email: >>> >>> --- covering email begins --- >>> >>> Dear Senators and Representatives, >>> >>> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >>> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >>> >>> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >>> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet >>> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the >>> US government. >>> >>> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >>> endorsing organisations are at your service: >>> >>> Deborah Brown, Access >>> ph: xxxx >>> email: deborah at accessnow.org >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >>> ph: xxxx >>> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >>> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >>> >>> Joana Varon, FGV >>> ph: xxxx >>> email: joana at varonferraz.com >>> >>> --- covering email ends --- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rashmi Rangnath >> Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney >> Public Knowledge >> 1818 N Street NW >> Suite 410 >> Washington, D.C. 20036 >> 202 861 0020 >> rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Jun 18 06:46:12 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:46:12 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just noticed Web Foundation is missing from the list of signatories. Having helped to initiate the letter we evidently forgot to take the final step of adding our names! Please add us if there is time. No worries if not. Thanks Anne On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > A quick update on the letter to Congress- the ACLU was not able to send it > out on Monday, but they said that they will be able to send it out first > thing Tuesday morning EDT. I will let you know as soon as I get > confirmation that it has gone out. Sincere apologies for any confusion. > > Did those of you in Tunis have the chance to discuss press strategy? > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Rishab Bailey wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Could you please add the Society for Knowledge Commons, India as a >> signatory. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> Rishab >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Rashmi Rangnath < >> rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy: >>> >>> Could you please add Public Knowledge to the list of signatories? I >>> could not find the letter on the website and so could not endorse there. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Rashmi >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> I'm attaching a PDF version of the letter to Congress with the 155 >>>> endorsements that we now have. If any last-minute endorsements are posted >>>> online, please CC them to me as well so that I can update the PDF. >>>> >>>> Please also identify whether you are interested in being listed as a >>>> contact person for any follow-up communications (the four given in the >>>> draft below are arbitrarily chosen to represent a few major regions). Here >>>> is a suggested covering email: >>>> >>>> --- covering email begins --- >>>> >>>> Dear Senators and Representatives, >>>> >>>> We write as a coalition of civil society groups from around the world, >>>> who work towards the promotion of human rights on the Internet. >>>> >>>> We attach a letter, endorsed by 155 organisations and individuals, >>>> expressing in the most serious terms our alarm at revelations of Internet >>>> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the >>>> US government. >>>> >>>> For further enquiries or follow-up, representatives of a number of the >>>> endorsing organisations are at your service: >>>> >>>> Deborah Brown, Access >>>> ph: xxxx >>>> email: deborah at accessnow.org >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners >>>> ph: xxxx >>>> email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International >>>> ph: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> email: jeremy at ciroap.org >>>> >>>> Joana Varon, FGV >>>> ph: xxxx >>>> email: joana at varonferraz.com >>>> >>>> --- covering email ends --- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>>> hub | >>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rashmi Rangnath >>> Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney >>> Public Knowledge >>> 1818 N Street NW >>> Suite 410 >>> Washington, D.C. 20036 >>> 202 861 0020 >>> rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Jun 18 07:10:58 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:10:58 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> Message-ID: <51C04042.5060709@gold.ac.uk> HI Deborah Whilst I was advocated an open list for the last two petitions, I do understand the need for a working group set up from here on in. Please count me in along with Matthias. Anyone else from IRP interested? Thanks for moderating this. best MF On 18/06/2013 05:37, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement > at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed > out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are > not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for > now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting > back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the > email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed > a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I > hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you > object. > > So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be > included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC > (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. > > Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? > > Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to > regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in > Geneva. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar > wrote: > > Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide > coalition of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter > appropriate for all countries that are possibly involved in > extracting surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate > means, and submit a localized version (referencing that country) > to each of the respective governments, still bearing the signature > of the group of organizations. > So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific > effect these actions have on citizens in another country, 1) > asking the government in question about its involvement in a > program as described above; 2) urging the government to verify by > what means information they receive from another state has been > obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from using > information obtained by means violating the human rights of its > citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct > toward its citizens the government is bound by human rights > principles as well as its own laws, protecting the individual > against intrusion by its government and operating on a basis of > presumed innocence. > > "Violations supported by you affect us all." > > > > > On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be >> within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the >> real test is within nations, behind closed doors. >> >> The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in >> principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have >> fallen. >> >> Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the >> In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for >> greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and >> campaigning and utilizing all tools available. >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes >>> three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is >>> anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or >>> off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it >>> would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with >>> experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all >>> are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach >>> to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already >>> provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. >>> >>> * convening a special session to examine this case >>> * supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the >>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >>> develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in >>> light of technological advancements, and, >>> * requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: >>> o formally asks states to report on practices and laws in >>> place on surveillance and what corrective steps will >>> they will take to meet human rights standards, and, >>> o examines the implications of this case in in the light >>> of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations >>> Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the >>> “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry >>> > wrote: >>> >>> ++1 >>> This is excellent >>> Shaila >>> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* >>> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! >>> * >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen >> > >>> *To:* Deborah Brown >> > >>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> ; >>> "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> " >>> >> > >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: >>> DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it >>> so that it >>> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> > Thanks Joana! >>> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be >>> made on behalf of >>> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to >>> make interventions >>> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this >>> intervention. We have >>> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best >>> Bits link for the >>> > current list of signatories before reading it at the >>> afternoon session 1500 >>> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making >>> the statement on >>> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make >>> sure you endorse >>> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> > >>> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, >>> so look for a >>> > confirmation email and click the link. >>> > >>> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have >>> a chance? >>> > >>> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in >>> less than 24 hours >>> > across many time zones. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Deborah >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear Anriette and all, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such >>> a short period of >>> >> time. This was amazing! >>> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> >> Please, let's spread it! >>> >> best >>> >> joana >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> >>> >> @joana_varon >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include >>> them all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC >>> site and read >>> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We >>> have included >>> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate >>> adding further >>> >>> names. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +1 from me. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> MF >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion >>> with Frank La >>> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last >>> para, the >>> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a >>> 3 pronged >>> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really >>> good: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>> prevent >>> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) >>> supporting the >>> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights >>> Committee develop of >>> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in >>> light of >>> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High >>> Commissioner to >>> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on >>> practices and >>> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective >>> steps will they >>> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) >>> examing the >>> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human >>> Rights Council >>> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>> and Human >>> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Joy >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>> >>>> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Hi All >>> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are >>> some changes I >>> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of >>> the issue i >>> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the >>> companies involved >>> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we >>> still do it?.) >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact >>> with him but if >>> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a >>> useful person to >>> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is >>> attending the HR >>> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state >>> surveillance on human >>> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently >>> reaching out to >>> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with >>> delivery (thanks >>> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be >>> sent on >>> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it >>> to the Best >>> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, >>> if organizations >>> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, >>> please reply on >>> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best >>> Bits system >>> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a >>> debate at the >>> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on >>> Monday. Though not >>> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up >>> with for >>> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last >>> 12 hours >>> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process >>> because of time >>> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to >>> working together to >>> >>>> get this finalized. >>> >>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>> Deborah >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council >>> on the >>> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing >>> the PRISM/NSA >>> >>> case >>> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. >>> This is a truly >>> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent >>> revelations of >>> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications >>> of US and non-US >>> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of >>> America. Equally >>> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of >>> that >>> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United >>> Kingdom, and the >>> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the >>> globally dominant >>> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach >>> are universally >>> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, >>> and may even >>> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human >>> rights as >>> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International >>> Covenant on >>> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles >>> 12 and 19 of >>> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted >>> Resolution 20/8, >>> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have >>> offline must also >>> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of >>> expression ..."[1] But >>> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom >>> of Expression >>> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state >>> surveillance of >>> >>>> communications with serious implications for the >>> exercise of the human >>> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and >>> expression. The >>> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >>> non-existent legal >>> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and >>> unlawful >>> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications >>> and, >>> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right >>> to freedom of >>> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by >>> governments in >>> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression >>> and the Internet >>> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not >>> addressing, and in fact >>> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass >>> surveillance >>> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal >>> information disclosed >>> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the >>> US Foreign >>> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits >>> in secret and >>> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of >>> those not >>> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the >>> very heart >>> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service >>> providers storing >>> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital >>> communications >>> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. >>> As La Rue >>> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations >>> and the >>> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be >>> subject to foreign >>> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response >>> is needed. >>> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and >>> involuntary parties >>> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their >>> users globally to >>> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would >>> uphold the Human >>> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding >>> Principles on Business >>> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" >>> Framework of >>> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these >>> violations >>> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to >>> target >>> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the >>> legitimate oversight of >>> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect >>> those >>> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support >>> their efforts to >>> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of >>> all global >>> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one >>> foreshadowed in the >>> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression >>> and the Internet. >>> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act >>> swiftly to >>> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based >>> surveillance system. One >>> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the >>> Expert Panel >>> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the >>> recommendation >>> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a >>> new General >>> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of >>> technological advancements >>> >>>>>> [1] >>> >>> >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>> >>>>>> [2] >>> >>> >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>> >>>>>> ENDS >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>> >>>> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I >>> have only one >>> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of >>> whatever groups >>> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful >>> to challenge >>> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they >>> have done >>> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with >>> specific details >>> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language >>> people are >>> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the >>> burden on others >>> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has >>> more to do with >>> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the >>> debate will >>> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be >>> made public -- >>> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil >>> society to always be >>> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on >>> both what facts >>> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by >>> the presentation >>> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>> >>>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a >>> statement to be >>> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC >>> session, which >>> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work >>> on an outline? >>> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. >>> My main concern >>> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant >>> participation from a >>> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a >>> global coalition. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a >>> sign-on >>> >>>> statement on bestbits.net >>> 5 hours before the >>> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can >>> pre-endorse it there. >>> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to >>> instruct someone >>> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the >>> air until then. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global >>> campaigning voice for >>> >>>> consumers* >>> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, >>> TTDI, 60000 >>> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer >>> Protection >>> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | >>> www.consumersinternational.org >>> >>> >>>> | >>> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>> >>>> >>> . >>> Don't >>> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are >>> subscribed to >>> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop >>> receiving emails >>> >>>> from it, send an email to >>> webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>> >>> >>>> >> unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>> >. >>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> >> > >>> >>>>>> @deblebrown >>> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> >>>>> @joana_varon >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> >>> >>> executive director, association for progressive >>> communications >>> >>> www.apc.org >>> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> >>> south africa >>> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> IRP mailing list >>> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 18 07:39:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:39:02 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Final text and endorsements In-Reply-To: References: <51BEEB78.10509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51C046D6.6040901@ciroap.org> On 18/06/13 18:46, Anne Jellema wrote: > Just noticed Web Foundation is missing from the list of signatories. > Having helped to initiate the letter we evidently forgot to take the > final step of adding our names! Please add us if there is time. No > worries if not. Oops! Please add yourself at http://bestbits.net/prism-congress. :-) Everyone will also notice that I have finally managed to split the signature list into organisations and individuals. It doesn't look as pretty as I would like, but we can improve the appearance later... at least the basic functionality is now there. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 08:46:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:46:07 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51C04042.5060709@gold.ac.uk> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> <51C04042.5060709@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3E6F4813-383E-4117-A675-A8055E35D380@gmail.com> Count me in pls. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > HI Deborah > > Whilst I was advocated an open list for the last two petitions, I do understand the need for a working group set up from here on in. Please count me in along with Matthias. > Anyone else from IRP interested? > > Thanks for moderating this. > best > MF > > On 18/06/2013 05:37, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you object. >> >> So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. >> >> Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? >> >> Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in Geneva. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar wrote: >>> Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide coalition of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter appropriate for all countries that are possibly involved in extracting surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate means, and submit a localized version (referencing that country) to each of the respective governments, still bearing the signature of the group of organizations. >>> So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific effect these actions have on citizens in another country, 1) asking the government in question about its involvement in a program as described above; 2) urging the government to verify by what means information they receive from another state has been obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from using information obtained by means violating the human rights of its citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct toward its citizens the government is bound by human rights principles as well as its own laws, protecting the individual against intrusion by its government and operating on a basis of presumed innocence. >>> >>> "Violations supported by you affect us all." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is within nations, behind closed doors. >>>> >>>> The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. >>>> >>>> Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools available. >>>> >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. >>>>> convening a special session to examine this case >>>>> supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, >>>>> requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: >>>>> formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, >>>>> examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>> Warm regards, >>>>> Deborah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >>>>>> ++1 >>>>>> This is excellent >>>>>> Shaila >>>>>> >>>>>> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >>>>>> ..................... the renaissance of composure ! >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>>> To: Deborah Brown >>>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" >>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >>>>>> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> > Thanks Joana! >>>>>> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >>>>>> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions >>>>>> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have >>>>>> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the >>>>>> > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 >>>>>> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on >>>>>> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >>>>>> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >>>>>> > confirmation email and click the link. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours >>>>>> > across many time zones. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Best, >>>>>> > Deborah >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Dear Anriette and all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >>>>>> >> time. This was amazing! >>>>>> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>>>>> >> Please, let's spread it! >>>>>> >> best >>>>>> >> joana >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> >> @joana_varon >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> Dear all >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>>>>> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>>>>> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>>>>> >>> names. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Best >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Anriette >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>>>> >>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> MF >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>>>> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>>>> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>>>> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>>>> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>>>> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>>>> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>>>> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>>>> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>>>> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>>>> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>>>> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>>>> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>>>> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>>>> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>>>> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Joy >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>>>> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>>> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>>> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>>>> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>>>> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>>>> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>>>> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>>>> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>>>> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>>>> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>>>> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>>>> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>>>> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>>>> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>>>> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>>>> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>>>> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>>>> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>>>> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>>>> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>>>> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>>>> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>>>> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>>>> >>>> get this finalized. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>>>> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>>>>> >>> case >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>>>> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>>>> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>>>> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>>>> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>>>> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>>>> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>>>> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>>>> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>>>> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>>>> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>>>> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>>>> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>>>> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>>>> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>>>> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>>>> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>>>> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>>>> >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>>>> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>>>> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>>>> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>>>> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>>>> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>>>> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>>>> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>>>> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>>>> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>>>> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>>>> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>>>> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>>>> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>>>> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>>>> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>>>> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>>>> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>>>> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>>>> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>>>> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>>>> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>>>> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>>>> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>>>> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>>>> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>>>> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>>>> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>>>> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>>>> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>>>> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>>>> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>>>> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>>>> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>>>> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>>>> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>>>> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>>>> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>>>> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>>>> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>>>> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>>>> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>>>> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>>>> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>> >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>>>> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>>>> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>>>> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>>>> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>>>> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>>>> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>>>> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>>>> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>>>> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>>>> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>>>> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>>>> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>>>> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>>>> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>>>> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>>>> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>>>> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>>>> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>>>> >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>>>> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>>>> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>>>> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>>>> >>>> consumers* >>>>>> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>>>> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>>>> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>>> >>>> | >>>>>> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>>> >>>> . Don't >>>>>> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>> >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>> >>> www.apc.org >>>>>> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>> >>> south africa >>>>>> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> IRP mailing list >>>>>> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>> south africa >>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> IRP mailing list >>>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>> @deblebrown >>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> IRP mailing list >>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 18:56:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:56:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 08:55:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:55:14 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <3E6F4813-383E-4117-A675-A8055E35D380@gmail.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> <51C04042.5060709@gold.ac.uk> <3E6F4813-383E-4117-A675-A8055E35D380@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b7301ce6c23$1ac5aa20$5050fe60$@gmail.com> Me too although I'll be a rather silent participant for the next while as I'm travelling. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:46 AM To: Marianne Franklin Cc: Deborah Brown; Allon Bar; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Count me in pls. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: HI Deborah Whilst I was advocated an open list for the last two petitions, I do understand the need for a working group set up from here on in. Please count me in along with Matthias. Anyone else from IRP interested? Thanks for moderating this. best MF On 18/06/2013 05:37, Deborah Brown wrote: Dear all, Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you object. So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in Geneva. All the best, Deborah On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar wrote: Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide coalition of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter appropriate for all countries that are possibly involved in extracting surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate means, and submit a localized version (referencing that country) to each of the respective governments, still bearing the signature of the group of organizations. So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific effect these actions have on citizens in another country, 1) asking the government in question about its involvement in a program as described above; 2) urging the government to verify by what means information they receive from another state has been obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from using information obtained by means violating the human rights of its citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct toward its citizens the government is bound by human rights principles as well as its own laws, protecting the individual against intrusion by its government and operating on a basis of presumed innocence. "Violations supported by you affect us all." On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is within nations, behind closed doors. The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools available. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: Dear all, The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. * convening a special session to examine this case * supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, * requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: * formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, * examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. Warm regards, Deborah On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: ++1 This is excellent Shaila The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! _____ From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: Deborah Brown Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Dear all Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it is within the 2 minutes space we have. Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours > across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> Joy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>> get this finalized. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>> case >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>> [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>> [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>> ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>> consumers* >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . Don't >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>. >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 18 10:21:26 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:21:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Invitation=3A_=22Digital_Rights?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_Latin_Am=E9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=22_newsletter?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, This is to introduce you to the newsletter "Digital Rights: Latin America & Caribbean" The first issue recently published is available here in 3 languages: Spanish , English and Portuguese . Also, you can freely subscribe: Spanish , English and Portuguese . More info bellow. Sorry for any cross-posting All the best, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Francisco Vera Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM Subject: Invitation: "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter Hi Everybody, Within a group of organizations from South America (ONG Derechos Digitales from Chile, ADC from Argentina, Fundación Karisma from Colombia and FGV-CTS from Brazil) we've created the "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter to share information and discuss about the key debates surrounding Internet that are starting to spawn in the region. On a monthly basis, we will put at your disposal regional news, analysis on key subjects, recommended research material and data about conferences and events. We will make our best to include every single voice into this discussion. In Latin America and The Caribbean these issues are starting to find their way into the public agenda. We do not know how the Internet will be in the future, but we do know how we want it to be. We believe the way the digital world is shaped will define the nature of our democracies. Our newsletter will be distributed also in Spanish, English and Portuguese. You can access its first edition (#0), published last week. Also there is the website where you can find all the content in all languages freely available with a CC license. The newsletter is in three different languages and you can freely subscribe: Spanish , English and Portuguese . You can read the first issue, recently published: Spanish , English and Portuguese . Finally, you also are welcomed to visit our web site where the articles are hosted. Best, Francisco Vera -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Jun 18 10:56:35 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:56:35 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com> Message-ID: (+ Web We Want on the principle of keeping all lists copied on everything, even if that means some annoying cross-posting for some of us) Good idea, Deborah. Please count us in - Anne and Karina. We are working on getting the contacts of all HRC member representatives together as Anriette suggested last week. Thanks Anne On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement at > the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed out, we'll > probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are not on these > lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for now with everyone > who wants to be involved and regularly reporting back to all the various > lists. This would hopefully help minimize the email traffic and cross > posting. Additionally, a few people expressed a preference for taking this > off-list to facilitate strategizing. I hope this approach sounds okay to > everyone. Please let me know if you object. > > So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be > included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC (Anriette > and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. > > Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? > > Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to regroup, > and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in Geneva. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar wrote: > >> Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide coalition >> of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter appropriate for >> all countries that are possibly involved in extracting surveillance data >> obtained through indiscriminate means, and submit a localized version >> (referencing that country) to each of the respective governments, still >> bearing the signature of the group of organizations. >> So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific effect these >> actions have on citizens in another country, 1) asking the government in >> question about its involvement in a program as described above; 2) urging >> the government to verify by what means information they receive from >> another state has been obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from >> using information obtained by means violating the human rights of its >> citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct toward its >> citizens the government is bound by human rights principles as well as its >> own laws, protecting the individual against intrusion by its government and >> operating on a basis of presumed innocence. >> >> "Violations supported by you affect us all." >> >> >> >> >> On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within >> governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is >> within nations, behind closed doors. >> >> The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is >> the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. >> >> Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country >> advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the >> public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools >> available. >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three >> requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested >> in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests >> forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and >> those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all >> are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to >> governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice >> on crafting the recommendations. >> >> - convening a special session to examine this case >> - supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new >> General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological >> advancements, and, >> - requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: >> - formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on >> surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human >> rights standards, and, >> - examines the implications of this case in in the light of the >> Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> Warm regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> >>> ++1 >>> This is excellent >>> Shaila >>> >>> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* >>> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! >>> * >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen >>> *To:* Deborah Brown >>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; " >>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < >>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases >>> Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it >>> is within the 2 minutes space we have. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> > Thanks Joana! >>> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf >>> of >>> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make >>> interventions >>> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We >>> have >>> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link >>> for the >>> > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session >>> 1500 >>> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the >>> statement on >>> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you >>> endorse >>> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> > >>> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >>> > confirmation email and click the link. >>> > >>> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >>> > >>> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 >>> hours >>> > across many time zones. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Deborah >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear Anriette and all, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short >>> period of >>> >> time. This was amazing! >>> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> >> Please, let's spread it! >>> >> best >>> >> joana >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) < >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> >>> >> @joana_varon >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen < >>> anriette at apc.org>wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> >>> names. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +1 from me. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> MF >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>> >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting >>> the >>> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop >>> of >>> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner >>> to >>> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices >>> and >>> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights >>> Council >>> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Joy >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>> >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>> >>>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Hi All >>> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do >>> it?.) >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the >>> HR >>> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out >>> to >>> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >>> organizations >>> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply >>> on >>> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at >>> the >>> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>> >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together >>> to >>> >>>> get this finalized. >>> >>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>> Deborah >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the >>> PRISM/NSA >>> >>> case >>> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a >>> truly >>> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and >>> non-US >>> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and >>> the >>> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally >>> dominant >>> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must >>> also >>> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>> >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the >>> human >>> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom >>> of >>> >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >>> Internet >>> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in >>> fact >>> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret >>> and >>> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers >>> storing >>> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to >>> foreign >>> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally >>> to >>> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the >>> Human >>> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on >>> Business >>> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight >>> of >>> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the >>> Internet. >>> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the >>> recommendation >>> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological >>> advancements >>> >>>>>> [1] >>> >>> >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>> >>>>>> [2] >>> >>> >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>> >>>>>> ENDS >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>> >>>> > wrote: >>> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do >>> with >>> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always >>> be >>> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >>> facts >>> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >>> presentation >>> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>> >>>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an >>> outline? >>> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main >>> concern >>> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>> >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>> >>>> consumers* >>> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>> >>>> | >>> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>> >>>> . >>> Don't >>> >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>> >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>> >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>> >>>> . >>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>> >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> >>>>>> @deblebrown >>> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> >>>>> @joana_varon >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> >>> www.apc.org >>> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> >>> south africa >>> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <%2B27%2011%20726%201692> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> IRP mailing list >>> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <%2B27%2011%20726%201692> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing listIRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.orghttp://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Jun 18 11:35:01 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:35:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] 2-pager on NSA-related advocacy options and reform proposals In-Reply-To: <2C7487AB-42E6-49F1-8462-029846A18642@cdt.org> References: <2C7487AB-42E6-49F1-8462-029846A18642@cdt.org> Message-ID: Thanks Kevin - this is really useful. Any thoughts about what form public advocacy to the companies should or could take? And what about timing: when would be the right moment to start shifting some public & media focus onto the companies? What do others think about how to divide our global efforts - which seems more strategic/impactful, targeting UN and national human rights institutions (follow-up on the UN HRC statement, aiming to get the HRC to launch a full investigation and report) or targeting companies? In an ideal world it would be 'both, and', but capacities and resources are limited. best Anne On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hi everyone-- > > We at CDT threw together for GNI this little two page document describing > some advocacy options and reform proposals around the NSA revelations, and > thought it was worth sharing here. Obviously, we're very focused on > transparency-related goals/options because we think that's where there is > the most political will and the most opportunity for alliance with the > companies to force meaningful action from Congress and the Executive > Branch, followed by specific amendments to PATRIOT Section 215 (the > provision being used to justify the court orders for all phone records). > > Since the companies are acting under court orders and are gagged against > saying anything, they have a very strong incentive to push--and to be seen > as pushing--for more transparency and more ability to speak. That's why > one of my main priorities right now is to get the companies, who are > somewhat at odds with each other on this issue right now (see e.g. > http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/15/4432368/google-opts-out-of-fisa-disclosure-deal-made-by-facebook-and), > to sit down together--with each other, and with a few representatives of > civil society--to try and bang out a shared transparency agenda. I will > keep this group updated as that effort proceeds, but in the meantime, > public advocacy asking the companies to work together to demand more > transparency--with each other and with us, as a unified front--would be > incredibly helpful. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Jun 18 15:24:56 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:24:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress Message-ID: Dear all, The letter from the international groups and individuals went out to Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending his email address as the sender, and to all who contributed to this effort. Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up from staffers. We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that those of us who are blogging about this (Access have a post up soon) share their posts with the list and that we come up with some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think the Web Foundation was putting a list of commonly used ones together, and it might make sense to use one specifically for this letter. Thoughts? All the best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Tue Jun 18 15:39:33 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:39:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> Thanks Deborah! CDT's short blog post is here: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/1806international-groups-call-congress-rein-nsa ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter from the international groups and individuals went out to Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending his email address as the sender, and to all who contributed to this effort. > > Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up from staffers. > > We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that those of us who are blogging about this (Access have a post up soon) share their posts with the list and that we come up with some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think the Web Foundation was putting a list of commonly used ones together, and it might make sense to use one specifically for this letter. Thoughts? > > All the best, > Deborah > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 16:22:12 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:22:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi folks I have beeen looking out for the info. I have starred it so I can tweet it and call attention to it during the session I chair tomorrow at the Africa Internet Summit Cheers N On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Deborah! CDT's short blog post is here: > > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/1806international-groups-call-congress-rein-nsa > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > The letter from the international groups and individuals went out to > Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big thanks to > the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending his email address as the > sender, and to all who contributed to this effort. > > Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, Gene, > Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up > from staffers. > > We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that those of us > who are blogging about this (Access have a post up soon) share their posts > with the list and that we come up with some hashtags to use to raise > awareness? I think the Web Foundation was putting a list of commonly used > ones together, and it might make sense to use one specifically for this > letter. Thoughts? > > All the best, > Deborah > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Tue Jun 18 16:29:49 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:29:49 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org> Here is mine. Universal, Self-Evident: I'm Not American but I Have Privacy Rights too, NSA https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights On 6/18/13 1:22 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi folks > > I have beeen looking out for the info. I have starred it so I can > tweet it and call attention to it during the session I chair tomorrow > at the Africa Internet Summit > > Cheers > > N > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Kevin Bankston > wrote: > > Thanks Deborah! CDT's short blog post is here: > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/1806international-groups-call-congress-rein-nsa > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Deborah Brown > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The letter from the international groups and individuals went out >> to Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A >> big thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending >> his email address as the sender, and to all who contributed to >> this effort. >> >> Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, >> Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye >> out for follow up from staffers. >> >> We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that >> those of us who are blogging about this (Access have a post up >> soon) share their posts with the list and that we come up with >> some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think the Web >> Foundation was putting a list of commonly used ones together, and >> it might make sense to use one specifically for this letter. >> Thoughts? >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Jun 18 18:58:20 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:58:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org> References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org> Message-ID: <5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> And here is Access's post: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/06/18/international-organizations-pressure-congress-to-respect-human-rights On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Here is mine. > > Universal, Self-Evident: I'm Not American but I Have Privacy Rights too, NSA > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights > > On 6/18/13 1:22 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> Hi folks >> >> I have beeen looking out for the info. I have starred it so I can tweet it and call attention to it during the session I chair tomorrow at the Africa Internet Summit >> >> Cheers >> >> N >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> Thanks Deborah! CDT's short blog post is here: >> >> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/1806international-groups-call-congress-rein-nsa >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The letter from the international groups and individuals went out to Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending his email address as the sender, and to all who contributed to this effort. >>> >>> Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up from staffers. >>> >>> We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that those of us who are blogging about this (Access have a post up soon) share their posts with the list and that we come up with some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think the Web Foundation was putting a list of commonly used ones together, and it might make sense to use one specifically for this letter. Thoughts? >>> >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Jun 18 19:25:43 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: <5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org>,<5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> Message-ID: And here is mine: http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.co.at/2013/06/surveillance-under-scrutiny-finally.html Kind regards Matthias ________________________________________ Von: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] im Auftrag von Deborah Brown [deborah at accessnow.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juni 2013 00:58 An: katitza at eff.org Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Nnenna Nwakanma Betreff: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress And here is Access's post: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/06/18/international-organizations-pressure-congress-to-respect-human-rights On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: Here is mine. Universal, Self-Evident: I'm Not American but I Have Privacy Rights too, NSA https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights On 6/18/13 1:22 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Hi folks I have beeen looking out for the info. I have starred it so I can tweet it and call attention to it during the session I chair tomorrow at the Africa Internet Summit Cheers N On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Kevin Bankston > wrote: Thanks Deborah! CDT's short blog post is here: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/1806international-groups-call-congress-rein-nsa ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Deborah Brown > wrote: Dear all, The letter from the international groups and individuals went out to Congress today (Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin for lending his email address as the sender, and to all who contributed to this effort. Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- Anja, Anriette, Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up from staffers. We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I suggest that those of us who are blogging about this (Access have a post up soon) share their posts with the list and that we come up with some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think the Web Foundation was putting a list of commonly used ones together, and it might make sense to use one specifically for this letter. Thoughts? All the best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 7 20:41:51 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 07:41:51 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, we shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th. Though leaving it open for endorsements at the platform. > > So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help us to upload the text? It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by email, please do so on the site too. Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johan.hallenborg at gov.se Tue Jun 18 13:19:28 2013 From: johan.hallenborg at gov.se (Johan Hallenborg) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:19:28 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> <1370970190.41789.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <56C8088E-9090-4CE6-9312-E518F0068290@gmail.com> <51B817B3.8080607@allonbar.com>, Message-ID: We have briefly discussed how follow up to the proposals for HRC could be done here in Tunis at the Freedom Online Coalition mtg. If you think we could help, pls feel free to keep me on the list. Johan Sent from my iPad. Apologies for all errors! 18 jun 2013 kl. 05:01 skrev "Deborah Brown" >: Dear all, Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you object. So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert. Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add? Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in Geneva. All the best, Deborah On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar > wrote: Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide coalition of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter appropriate for all countries that are possibly involved in extracting surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate means, and submit a localized version (referencing that country) to each of the respective governments, still bearing the signature of the group of organizations. So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific effect these actions have on citizens in another country, 1) asking the government in question about its involvement in a program as described above; 2) urging the government to verify by what means information they receive from another state has been obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from using information obtained by means violating the human rights of its citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct toward its citizens the government is bound by human rights principles as well as its own laws, protecting the individual against intrusion by its government and operating on a basis of presumed innocence. "Violations supported by you affect us all." On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the real test is within nations, behind closed doors. The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have fallen. Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and campaigning and utilizing all tools available. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: Dear all, The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already provided some advice on crafting the recommendations. * convening a special session to examine this case * supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, * requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: * formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, * examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. Warm regards, Deborah On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: ++1 This is excellent Shaila The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Anriette Esterhuysen > To: Deborah Brown > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Dear all Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it is within the 2 minutes space we have. Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours > across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> Joy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>> get this finalized. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>> case >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>> [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>> [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>> ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>> consumers* >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . Don't >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>. >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cedric.laurant at sontusdatos.org Tue Jun 18 20:48:21 2013 From: cedric.laurant at sontusdatos.org (Cedric Laurant @ Proyecto Son Tus Datos) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:48:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From SonTusDatos (Mexico): http://t.co/8cTwRusvqs (in Spanish). Cédric --- At 3:24 PM -0400 6/18/13, Deborah Brown wrote: >Dear all, > > >The letter from the international groups and >individuals went out to Congress today >(Tuesday), to 1855 recipients to be exact! A big >thanks to the ACLU for sending it out, to Kevin >for lending his email address as the sender, and >to all who contributed to this effort. > >Those who are listed as contacts on the email-- >Anja, Anriette, Gene, Joana, Jeremy, Katherine, >and Kevin-- should keep an eye out for follow up >from staffers. > >We haven't discussed a press strategy, but can I >suggest that those of us who are blogging about >this (Access have a post up soon) share their >posts with the list and that we come up with >some hashtags to use to raise awareness? I think >the Web Foundation was putting a list of >commonly used ones together, and it might make >sense to use one specifically for this letter. >Thoughts? > >All the best, >Deborah >-- > >Deborah Brown >Policy Analyst >Access | AccessNow.org >E. deborah at accessnow.org >@deblebrown >PGP 0x5EB4727D > >_______________________________________________ >IRP mailing list >IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Cedric Laurant Co-Fundador, Proyecto "Son Tus Datos" (http://sontusdatos.org) - Skype: cedrichl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Síguenos en: Twitter: @sontusdatos (https://twitter.com/sontusdatos) Google+: https://plus.google.com/102749216725596520835/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Proyecto-Son-Tus-Datos/556943221003713 YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/SonTusDatos Diaspora: https://diasp.eu/u/sontusdatos/ RSS Feed: http://sontusdatos.org/feed/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 09:49:33 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51C04042.5060709@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1371563373.70994.YahooMailMobile@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Deborah I would like to be included in the working group. Many thanks Shaila -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jun 19 06:55:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:55:04 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: <5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org> <5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> Message-ID: <51C18E08.8050208@ciroap.org> On 19/06/2013, at 6:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > And here is Access's post: > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/06/18/international-organizations-pressure-congress-to-respect-human-rights Here is mine (though I jumped the gun assuming that it would go to Congress on Monday): http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/how-the-prism-surveillance-scandal-affects-asia -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From sana at bolobhi.org Wed Jun 19 10:12:43 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:12:43 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] [webwewant] Letter on NSA delivered to Congress In-Reply-To: <51C18E08.8050208@ciroap.org> References: <68690E46-A0C0-455A-90B2-78762F4026F8@cdt.org> <51C0C33D.6070302@eff.org> <5FC13B2F-8B32-416E-B3F2-63FD4DB04458@accessnow.org> <51C18E08.8050208@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Here's our post on the issue: http://bolobhi.org/dear-nsa-we-have-rights-too-pakistan/ Thanks to everyone who worked really hard on making this possible, Best, Sana On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/06/2013, at 6:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > And here is Access's post: > > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/06/18/international-organizations-pressure-congress-to-respect-human-rights > > > Here is mine (though I jumped the gun assuming that it would go to > Congress on Monday): > > > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/how-the-prism-surveillance-scandal-affects-asia > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 19 10:50:34 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:50:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Hosting Molon at Berkman #MarcoCivil Message-ID: Hi all, Colin Maclay and I are hosting the Brazilian House Representative Alessandro Molon - the rapporteur for Marco Civil - is talking to the community of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Diego Canabarro and I are covering it via Twitter and soon I hope to publish Molon's presentation. You may follow at #Berkman #Marcocivil @alessandromolon @carolinarossini @diegocanabarro. Please, send your questions to @carolinarossini, so I can ask him and write back the question. Cheers, Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 19 11:01:58 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:01:58 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Hosting Molon at Berkman #MarcoCivil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: correction below: Actually, it is @diegorcanabarro. : ) > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Colin Maclay and I are hosting the Brazilian House Representative >> Alessandro Molon - the rapporteur for Marco Civil - in talking to the >> community of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Diego >> Canabarro and I are covering it via Twitter and soon I hope to publish >> Molon's presentation. You may follow at #Berkman #Marcocivil >> @alessandromolon @carolinarossini @diegocanabarro. >> >> Please, send your questions to @carolinarossini, so I can ask him and >> write back the question. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carol >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 19 11:06:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:25 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Hosting Molon at Berkman #MarcoCivil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C1C8F1.5040000@cafonso.ca> Great news! Um abraço para meu amigo Molon! fraternal regards --c.a. On 06/19/2013 11:50 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hi all, > > Colin Maclay and I are hosting the Brazilian House Representative > Alessandro Molon - the rapporteur for Marco Civil - is talking to the > community of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Diego > Canabarro and I are covering it via Twitter and soon I hope to publish > Molon's presentation. You may follow at #Berkman #Marcocivil > @alessandromolon @carolinarossini @diegocanabarro. > > Please, send your questions to @carolinarossini, so I can ask him and write > back the question. > > Cheers, > > Carol > From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Jun 20 09:57:23 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:57:23 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Pakistan's Internet Firewall: "O Pakistan, We Stand on Guard for Thee" In-Reply-To: <51C1C8F1.5040000@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Here is the link to our new research report that Citizen Lab and Bytes for All, Pakistan conducted jointly to uncover Internet Firewall in Pakistan. http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/104 The report is titled "O Pakistan, We Stand on Guard for Thee: An Analysis of Canada-based Netsweeper¹s role in Pakistan¹s Censorship Regime". Thought it will be of interest to some of you. Best wishes and regards Shahzad Ahmad Bytes for All, Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 15:27:18 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:27:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance discovered in Brazil Message-ID: And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. More on the "mosaic" project at: (In Portuguese) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... Carol Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 02:58:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:58:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> Yes, of course, but to state the obvious... While the remit of the US Congress, the US constitution etc.etc. is to govern/protect the US and its citizens, the Internet is global as are the businesses that operate on/with the Internet and particularly the global Internet giants which for various reasons are in large part US based--Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc.; and as well the interests and reach of the US based security system are equally global as evidenced by the statement from Mr. Clapper. So on the one hand we have systems of controls and accountabilities that are national and on the other hand we have actions and interests that are global. And meanwhile we have the same folks who are benefiting from this mismatch acting with all of their very considerable talents and resources to prevent the development of any means to resolve this mismatch as for example by insisting that a status quo global Internet governance regime represents the highest form of ethical and responsible behaviour on the Internet while the only real protections and controls that are available within it are those that benefit (and protect) US citizens alone. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:43 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't > see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Jun 21 09:29:43 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:29:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN briefing in Brussels Message-ID: Dear all, I don't think I saw this announcement passing here - apologies otherwise. In case you happen to be in Brussels on 25 June 2013, you might want to attend the ICANN Brussels Briefing, co-organised by ICANN and CENTR. Please note that the European Commission is *not* among the organisers (although Linda Corugedo Steneberg, Director responsible for Internet governance, will speak) so any questions / comments, as well as requests for registrations, should be addressed to the ICANN office in Brussels (Renate DeWulf at renate.dewulf at icann.org). Agenda below and further informations at https://myicann.org/event/stakeholder-engagement/icann-brussels-briefing: Title: ICANN Brussels Briefing Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 - 10:00 to 15:00 Where: Brussels, Belgium Calendar/Source: Stakeholder Engagement BRUSSELS BRIEFING; 25TH JUNE; SILKEN BERALYMONT HOTEL Agenda 10.00 Registration and Coffee 10.15 Fadi Chehade Keynote 11.00 The IG Landscape (Tarek Kamel) 11.45 The Wider Internet Ecosystem • Linda Corugedo-Steneberg (European Commission) • Peter Van Roste (CENTR) 12.30 Discussion 12.45 Networking Lunch 13.30 ICANN Strategic Plan – Your Role (Sally Costerton) 14.00 All you wanted to know about gTLDs… (Christine Willett) 15.00 Close The Briefing is being coordinated by ICANN in conjunction with CENTR. Please register by e-mailing Renate DeWulf at renate.dewulf at icann.org by 21st June. SILKEN BERALYMONT HOTEL 11-19, Boulevard Charlemagne 1000 Brussels - Belgium --- Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Sat Jun 22 05:56:32 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:56:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Coming on top of revelations about the UK, India, Finland and Germany - this really underscores the global nature of the problem. Nothing that Frank LaRue didn't already warn about, but interesting that so much more is starting to come to light. Because Tim B-L is a prominent name in the UK we're likely to get asked for media comment on the UK spying revelations. This will provide another opportunity to reinforce key messages agreed on these lists earlier. Also, if any UK-based organisations want to work on a coordinated response, please let me know, we'd be keen to contribute. Cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carolina wrote: > And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian > "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute > surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. > More on the "mosaic" project at: > > (In Portuguese) > > > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm > > I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... > > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 09:05:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:05:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred problem (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 eyes" group) and of course the actions of more traditional state actor surveillance players such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of this is requiring of some sort of global response and presumably in the ideal world (and as presumed goals for ourselves) the development of some sort of global means and mechanisms, tools and institutions for the privacy protection of all of us "foreigners"/citizens of the Universal States of the Internetworked. (USI for short) :) M From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anne Jellema Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:57 AM To: Carolina Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; Berkman Friends; redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br Subject: Re: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil Coming on top of revelations about the UK, India, Finland and Germany - this really underscores the global nature of the problem. Nothing that Frank LaRue didn't already warn about, but interesting that so much more is starting to come to light. Because Tim B-L is a prominent name in the UK we're likely to get asked for media comment on the UK spying revelations. This will provide another opportunity to reinforce key messages agreed on these lists earlier. Also, if any UK-based organisations want to work on a coordinated response, please let me know, we'd be keen to contribute. Cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carolina wrote: And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. More on the "mosaic" project at: (In Portuguese) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-in ternet,1044500,0.htm I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... Carol Sent from my iPhone -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 24 08:28:39 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:58:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Message-ID: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas ', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas . Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 24 10:48:44 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:48:44 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a > lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent > PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to > believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from > the fact that there are news reports > > that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for > different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by > nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these > companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated > with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas > ', its revolving doors with > US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change > ideas . > Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and > not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data > with US government extended only to such data that is actually located > in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within > the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may > reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I > want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually > resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of > what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data > about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the > US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of > whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all > their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? > Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near > fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose > of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of > protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US > citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing > their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there > can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a > country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these > companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would > any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... > > parminder -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 24 10:55:09 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:55:09 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Spying on the World From Domestic Soil: International Backlash Message-ID: <51C85DCD.5050108@eff.org> Spying on the World From Domestic Soil: International Backlash https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spying-world-domestic-soil The world is still reeling from the series of revelations about NSA and FBI surveillance. Over the past two weeks the emerging details paint a picture of pervasive, crossborder spying programs of unprecedented reach and scope: the U.S. has now admitted using domestic networks to spy on Internet users both domestically and worldwide. The people now know that foreign intelligence can spy on their communications if they travel through U.S. networks or are stored in U.S. servers. While international public outrage has justifiably decried the scope and reach of these revelations, carte blanche foreign intelligence surveillance powers over foreigners are far from new. In the U.S., foreign intelligence has always had nearly limitless legal capacity to surveil foreigners because domestic laws and protections simply don't reach that surveillance activity. This legal framework, with no protection for foreigners and little oversight besides, has been exacerbated by the growth in individuals now living their lives online, who conduct their most intimate communications in cloud services that are hosted in the U.S. and across different jurisdictions. To make matters worse, the vast amount of Internet traffic globally is routed through the U.S. Last but not least, logistical barriers to powerful, mass surveillance have lowered and the application of existing legal principles in new technological contexts has become unclear and shrouded in secrecy, especially in a extra-territorial surveillance context. The US government’s FISA powers, which in 2008 opened the door to broad surveillance of communications where one side is a U.S. citizen and the other side is a foreigner, represent just an example of an increasing state capacity to conduct nearly limitless invasive extra-territorial surveillance from domestic soil. Full article here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spying-world-domestic-soil -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 03:34:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:04:59 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> Message-ID: <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The > answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by > companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that > it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security > Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act > and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is > located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a third party, > including cloud computing services under US civil > (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is > whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" > of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where > the information is physically stored, where the company is > headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is > sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has > jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether > the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of > their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could > imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely > related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, > custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the > data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask >> a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent >> PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to >> believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from >> the fact that there are news reports >> >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for >> different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by >> nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these >> companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated >> with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >> ', its revolving doors >> with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime >> change ideas >> . Facebook >> also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not >> other things in the same region..... >> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data >> with US government extended only to such data that is actually >> located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data >> within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it >> may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but >> still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these >> companies.) >> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually >> resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of >> what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data >> about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside >> the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift >> all their data to servers in other countries that made no such >> demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up >> near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the >> purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake >> of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US >> citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing >> their bottom-lines? >> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there >> can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a >> country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these >> companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? >> >> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >> >> parminder > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 04:24:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:54:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism " led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The >> answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by >> companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that >> it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security >> Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act >> and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is >> located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a third party, >> including cloud computing services under US civil >> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is >> whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" >> of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter >> where the information is physically stored, where the company is >> headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is >> sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether >> the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of >> their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could >> imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely >> related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the >> data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European > sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage > of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be > obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... > Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law > perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to > European email could have carried classified information! Here, > Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually > transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - > information from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T > (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise > service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over > enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here > )... > Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and > control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to > access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to > me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask >>> a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the >>> recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I >>> refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. >>> Apart from the fact that there are news reports >>> >>> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for >>> different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by >>> nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these >>> companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated >>> with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >>> ', its revolving doors >>> with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime >>> change ideas >>> . >>> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, >>> and not other things in the same region..... >>> >>> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share >>> data with US government extended only to such data that is actually >>> located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all >>> data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever >>> it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but >>> still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these >>> companies.) >>> >>> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually >>> resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face >>> of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing >>> data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data >>> outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, >>> the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, >>> and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no >>> such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have >>> set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for >>> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the >>> sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of >>> non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for >>> enhancing their bottom-lines? >>> >>> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there >>> can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of >>> a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force >>> these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... >>> Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the >>> US gov? >>> >>> >>> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >>> >>> parminder >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Jun 25 09:04:39 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:04:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet Message-ID: Dear all, Unfortunately the proposal to open up the ITU Council Working Group on Internet Related Public Policy Issues was not agreed on at the recent ITU Council meeting, which concluded late last week. It seems that although some Council members were supportive of the idea in principle, they choose not to be very vocal, and others simply opposed it. The Secretary General has said that he will consult a group of experts outside the CWG but no direct participation from civil society will be permitted. I'm trying to find out more details on how the Secretary General will conduct these consultations, as well as when the next CWG-Internet meeting will be, which I will pass along to this list. For your information Sweden made the following statement. **** *“Sweden notes that the proposal is that the Council does not approve proposals to enable participation by all stakeholders in the work of the CWG Internet.*** *Sweden further note that there is no proposal to authorize public access to ITU documents related to the Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues (CWG Internet). We need clarification on how stakeholders should be able to participate in the debate if they do not have access to all documents.*** *Sweden is of the view that openness and transparency is important and is one of the basic principles to be applied in ITU and open participation and public access to documents would help to promote ITU as a transparent and open organization and to improve its public image.*** *Sweden is further of the view that many issues discussed at ITU meetings are of interest both to the membership and to non-members including the general public and that there is a need to take full account of the interests of all stakeholders. *** *Sweden fully support the existing multistakeholder model for internet governance and the need to involve all stakeholders, both member states and other stakeholders, in the discussions related to Internet issues, also in ITU.*** *Sweden therefore is of the view that the group should be open to all stakeholders and not only one group of stakeholders.”*** **Best, Deborah ** Deborah Brown ** Senior Policy Analyst**** Access | AccessNow.org **** E. deborah at accessnow.org**** @deblebrown**** PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 09:21:37 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:21:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe it is time for civil society to walk away from this process and refuse to accept it as legitimate? At a moment when events make it crystal clear that we need global discussion of critical human rights principles and norms for governments (and companies) to follow, how can we keep banging our heads against the ITU wall of resistance? Maybe an appeal to the UN could shake things up, boycotting the ITU process until we are given a full voice at the table? On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Unfortunately the proposal to open up the ITU Council Working Group on > Internet Related Public Policy Issues was not agreed on at the recent ITU > Council meeting, which concluded late last week. It seems that although > some Council members were supportive of the idea in principle, they choose > not to be very vocal, and others simply opposed it. > > The Secretary General has said that he will consult a group of experts > outside the CWG but no direct participation from civil society will be > permitted. I'm trying to find out more details on how the Secretary General > will conduct these consultations, as well as when the next CWG-Internet > meeting will be, which I will pass along to this list. > > For your information Sweden made the following statement. **** > > *“Sweden notes that the proposal is that the Council does not approve > proposals to enable participation by all stakeholders in the work of the > CWG Internet.*** > > *Sweden further note that there is no proposal to authorize public access > to ITU documents related to the Council Working Group on international > Internet-related public policy issues (CWG Internet). We need > clarification on how stakeholders should be able to participate in the > debate if they do not have access to all documents.*** > > *Sweden is of the view that openness and transparency is important and is > one of the basic principles to be applied in ITU and open participation and > public access to documents would help to promote ITU as a transparent and > open organization and to improve its public image.*** > > *Sweden is further of the view that many issues discussed at ITU meetings > are of interest both to the membership and to non-members including the > general public and that there is a need to take full account of the > interests of all stakeholders. *** > > *Sweden fully support the existing multistakeholder model for internet > governance and the need to involve all stakeholders, both member states and > other stakeholders, in the discussions related to Internet issues, also in > ITU.*** > > *Sweden therefore is of the view that the group should be open to all > stakeholders and not only one group of stakeholders.”*** > > **Best, > Deborah ** > > > > Deborah Brown > > ** > > Senior Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org **** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > @deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 8 07:15:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:15:45 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: "I am just doing my job, sorry!" Ah, the technical community... --c.a. On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how >> it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. > > Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just > stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. > > From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 25 11:59:55 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:59:55 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the privacy rights of users. Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism" led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 16:00:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:00:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: June IG webinar: PRISM, surveillance powers, and the impact on Internet users worldwide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Borg Psaila Date: Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:47 PM Subject: June IG webinar: PRISM, surveillance powers, and the impact on Internet users worldwide To: igcbp at diplomacy.edu Dear friends, I would like to extend an invitation to join us for our June webinar, hosted by privacy expert Katitza Rodriguez, international rights director at EFF, on the recent PRISM revelations, the surveillance powers of states, and how this can affect you, me, and every Internet user worldwide. Join us tomorrow at 15:00 GMT. More info below. To register, click here . Looking forward to e-seeing you, Stephanie *June Internet governance webinar* How does the enormous surveillance power affect Internet users worldwide? Dear friends, We would like to invite you to our June IG webinar, next Wednesday 26th June at 15:00 GMT. The webinar will be hosted by privacy expert *KatitzaRodriguez *, international rights director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The recent reports confirming the existence of PRISM, the surveillance program operated by the US National Security Agency, have shook the international online community since classified documents were leaked to the press. Much of the US media coverage of PRISM has concentrated on the program’s impact on the constitutional rights of US Internet users. But what about the billions of Internet users around the world whose private information is stored on US servers, or whose data travels across US networks? Our June webinar will look at how the information disclosed by the NSAleaks affect the international community, and how this highlights one part of an international system of surveillance that dissolves the national privacy protections we have, wherever we live. During the webinar, participants will be able to discuss the topic with our host. Attendance is free; please register by filling in this registration form . Looking forward to e-seeing you! The IG webinars team -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 25 18:59:31 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:59:31 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Obama on whistleblowers protection back in 2008 - things change... Message-ID: http://obama.3cdn.net/0080cc578614b42284_2a0mvyxpz.pdf pag 7 paragraph III: *Protect Whistleblowers:* Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. How cute? -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 23:24:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:24:23 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001a01ce721c$bacb27d0$30617770$@gmail.com> While agreeing with Gene's overall comments I'm wondering whether the ITU (or the HRC--given Sir Nigel's rather formalized response to Anne's quite (IMHO) appropriate query) is the appropriate venue for Civil Society initiatives in this emerging constellation of issues. What we are seeing is the establishment of a global surveillance system based on and through the Internet with multiple (and not necessarily collaborating) participants but centred in the US NSA and its close ally the UK's GCHQ. When combined with the revelations concerning the putting in place by the US of a global system for the offensive use of the Internet for the whole range of potential war-like actions; the broad recognition that the "Internet Freedom" initiatives of the US and its immediate allies in the various global governance fora were rather more concerned with Freedom "to" (do whatever it wanted with the Internet) as opposed to Freedom "from" (interventions in support of the range of human rights as defined by the UDHR, for example); the enlistment (with how much willingness on their part is still unclear) of the major (US) Internet corporations in these overall initiatives and strategies; it's suborning of huge swaths of Civil Society in support of various elements of these processes; and as we await further revelations and the overall necessity to see these as global assaults requiring global responses -- the ITU seems rather too narrow a forum for the kind of very broadly based coalition of forces and initiatives that seems the necessary and appropriate response. Where exactly to focus the efforts of a coalition of the unwilling, of those of us (all of us) who are "fair game" in this building of the mechanisms of the 1984 dystopia is something that we need to consider and whether any of the specialized agencies or even the UN itself, with its overall dominance by the existing powers, its focus on the modality of increasingly (in an internetworked world) less relevant structures of national boundaries, and its deep incapacity to absorb civil society as a relevant actor; is the appropriate venue, is I think, a subject to be discussed rather than assumed. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:22 PM To: Deborah Brown Cc: Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet Maybe it is time for civil society to walk away from this process and refuse to accept it as legitimate? At a moment when events make it crystal clear that we need global discussion of critical human rights principles and norms for governments (and companies) to follow, how can we keep banging our heads against the ITU wall of resistance? Maybe an appeal to the UN could shake things up, boycotting the ITU process until we are given a full voice at the table? On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: Dear all, Unfortunately the proposal to open up the ITU Council Working Group on Internet Related Public Policy Issues was not agreed on at the recent ITU Council meeting, which concluded late last week. It seems that although some Council members were supportive of the idea in principle, they choose not to be very vocal, and others simply opposed it. The Secretary General has said that he will consult a group of experts outside the CWG but no direct participation from civil society will be permitted. I'm trying to find out more details on how the Secretary General will conduct these consultations, as well as when the next CWG-Internet meeting will be, which I will pass along to this list. For your information Sweden made the following statement. "Sweden notes that the proposal is that the Council does not approve proposals to enable participation by all stakeholders in the work of the CWG Internet. Sweden further note that there is no proposal to authorize public access to ITU documents related to the Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues (CWG Internet). We need clarification on how stakeholders should be able to participate in the debate if they do not have access to all documents. Sweden is of the view that openness and transparency is important and is one of the basic principles to be applied in ITU and open participation and public access to documents would help to promote ITU as a transparent and open organization and to improve its public image. Sweden is further of the view that many issues discussed at ITU meetings are of interest both to the membership and to non-members including the general public and that there is a need to take full account of the interests of all stakeholders. Sweden fully support the existing multistakeholder model for internet governance and the need to involve all stakeholders, both member states and other stakeholders, in the discussions related to Internet issues, also in ITU. Sweden therefore is of the view that the group should be open to all stakeholders and not only one group of stakeholders." Best, Deborah Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 25 23:57:29 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:57:29 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: <001a01ce721c$bacb27d0$30617770$@gmail.com> References: <001a01ce721c$bacb27d0$30617770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Pity. Brazil was partially sympathetic to our request. When I've sent our proposal to the Brazilian representatives, the answer was that they supported the idea of opening documents and working groups related to Internet and Plenipot. Nevertheless, Anatel considered that all the interested stakeholders should become associate members of ITU. o.0 I could do the follow up on the Brazilian position remotely (as the protests here are also taking some part of my time), but I'll reach them to ask about next steps on the Brazilian proposal on the roles of States in this situation of closed debate. Also, besides the CWG-Internet, there is the *CWG on WSIS: implementation of outcomes,* in which the Chairman is from Russia and one of the vice-chairman from Saudi Arabia. They just had an extraordinary meeting in the 20, working on this concept note on the Open Preparatory Process for the WSIS+10 High-Level Event/Extended Version of the WSIS Forum 2014): http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/docs/June-2013/WSIS10-MPP-Preparatory-Process.pdf I believe its a bit late to be off, even though sometimes it seams that we are still only looking to them from outside, through the window... cheers joana On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > While agreeing with Gene's overall comments I'm wondering whether the ITU > (or the HRC--given Sir Nigel's rather formalized response to Anne's quite > (IMHO) appropriate query) is the appropriate venue for Civil Society > initiatives in this emerging constellation of issues. **** > > ** ** > > What we are seeing is the establishment of a global surveillance system > based on and through the Internet with multiple (and not necessarily > collaborating) participants but centred in the US NSA and its close ally > the UK's GCHQ. When combined with the revelations concerning the putting in > place by the US of a global system for the offensive use of the Internet > for the whole range of potential war-like actions; the broad recognition > that the "Internet Freedom" initiatives of the US and its immediate allies > in the various global governance fora were rather more concerned with > Freedom "to" (do whatever it wanted with the Internet) as opposed to > Freedom "from" (interventions in support of the range of human rights as > defined by the UDHR, for example); the enlistment (with how much > willingness on their part is still unclear) of the major (US) Internet > corporations in these overall initiatives and strategies; it's suborning of > huge swaths of Civil Society in support of various elements of these > processes; and as we await further revelations and the overall necessity to > see these as global assaults requiring global responses -- the ITU seems > rather too narrow a forum for the kind of very broadly based coalition of > forces and initiatives that seems the necessary and appropriate response.* > *** > > ** ** > > Where exactly to focus the efforts of a coalition of the unwilling, of > those of us (all of us) who are "fair game" in this building of the > mechanisms of the 1984 dystopia is something that we need to consider and > whether any of the specialized agencies or even the UN itself, with its > overall dominance by the existing powers, its focus on the modality of > increasingly (in an internetworked world) less relevant structures of > national boundaries, and its deep incapacity to absorb civil society as a > relevant actor; is the appropriate venue, is I think, a subject to be > discussed rather than assumed.**** > > ** ** > > Mike**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Gene Kimmelman > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:22 PM > *To:* Deborah Brown > *Cc:* > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open > participation in CWG-Internet**** > > ** ** > > Maybe it is time for civil society to walk away from this process and > refuse to accept it as legitimate? At a moment when events make it crystal > clear that we need global discussion of critical human rights principles > and norms for governments (and companies) to follow, how can we keep > banging our heads against the ITU wall of resistance? Maybe an appeal to > the UN could shake things up, boycotting the ITU process until we are given > a full voice at the table?**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote:**** > > Dear all, **** > > ** ** > > Unfortunately the proposal to open up the ITU Council Working Group on > Internet Related Public Policy Issues was not agreed on at the recent ITU > Council meeting, which concluded late last week. It seems that although > some Council members were supportive of the idea in principle, they choose > not to be very vocal, and others simply opposed it. **** > > ** ** > > The Secretary General has said that he will consult a group of experts > outside the CWG but no direct participation from civil society will be > permitted. I'm trying to find out more details on how the Secretary General > will conduct these consultations, as well as when the next CWG-Internet > meeting will be, which I will pass along to this list. **** > > For your information Sweden made the following statement. **** > > *“Sweden notes that the proposal is that the Council does not approve > proposals to enable participation by all stakeholders in the work of the > CWG Internet.***** > > *Sweden further note that there is no proposal to authorize public access > to ITU documents related to the Council Working Group on international > Internet-related public policy issues (CWG Internet). We need > clarification on how stakeholders should be able to participate in the > debate if they do not have access to all documents.***** > > *Sweden is of the view that openness and transparency is important and is > one of the basic principles to be applied in ITU and open participation and > public access to documents would help to promote ITU as a transparent and > open organization and to improve its public image.***** > > *Sweden is further of the view that many issues discussed at ITU meetings > are of interest both to the membership and to non-members including the > general public and that there is a need to take full account of the > interests of all stakeholders. ***** > > *Sweden fully support the existing multistakeholder model for internet > governance and the need to involve all stakeholders, both member states and > other stakeholders, in the discussions related to Internet issues, also in > ITU.***** > > *Sweden therefore is of the view that the group should be open to all > stakeholders and not only one group of stakeholders.”***** > > Best, > Deborah **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Deborah Brown**** > > Senior Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org **** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > @deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Wed Jun 26 03:29:51 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:29:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Dear Andrew Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! best MF On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the > current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more > rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of > global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any > detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and > jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies > rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I > note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a > German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has > flagged up – we can reinforce thepush for norms and principles > pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as > long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate > national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles > need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss > online and then discuss in person at Bali? > > Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is > important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and > promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with > the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of > the law against such interference or attacks. > > The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except > in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized > laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with > international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be > necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. > > Participating companies will employ protections with respect to > personal information in all countries where they operate in order to > protect the privacy rights of users. > > Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of > users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations > that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally > recognized laws and standards. > > Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – > it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when > asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws > and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location > of data or its legal ownership > > > This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that > much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... > They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one > superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US > establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of > course finds so much military, political, economic, social and > cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win > win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most > global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of > the civil society often spoken of here. > > Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that > Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism > " > led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... > Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the > hook with respect to the recent episodes. > > What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two > things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: > The answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the > US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the > position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including > National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under > section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and > subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a third > party, including cloud computing services under US civil > (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law > is whether the information is under the "possession, custody > or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It > doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, > where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the > person whose information is sought is located. The issue for > users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud > computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing > service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, > wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a > situation in which a large US-based company was loosely > related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have > “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the > subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an > European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the > transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US > borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents > to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google > broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as > espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email > could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on > instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a > piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information > from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. > AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest > enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been > a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for > instance see here > )... > Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody > and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair > game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding > progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in > this global space.... > > parminder > > > > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need > to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms > of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on > them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced > upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports > > that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov > for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply > motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that > many of these companies have strong political agenda which are > closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all > know about 'Google Ideas > ', its revolving > doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive > regime change ideas > . > Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA > region, and not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to > share data with US government extended only to such data that > is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it > extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of > these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly > hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely > sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that > actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these > companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and > intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not > simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, > it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose > citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift > all their data to servers in other countries that made no such > demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have > set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange > places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could > they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, > lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what > they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that > there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of > citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law > which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a > country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too > unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these > companies..... > > parminder > > > > > -- > > Katitza Rodriguez > > International Rights Director > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > katitza at eff.org > > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Jun 26 05:15:56 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:15:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] Sent: 26 June 2013 08:30 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Dear Andrew Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! best MF On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the privacy rights of users. Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism" led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 26 06:24:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:54:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated society... And that the global civil society should pause, and retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM plus disclosures. Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the present moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is that we need to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil society took the stance that less rather than more global IG is better..... That was a mistake, and continues to be a mistake... Internet is big, it is global, it transforms everything. And the prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - governance of it can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that - whether it is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more global IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at the global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the right direction.... And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. ... What disclosures can and should the telecom and application companies share about data hosting and transit, and applicability of different jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We need to drill down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens only when there are clear focal points for policy development that exist (See for instance the real work that is going on right now in Marrakesh for writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed material for the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen the kind of joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy dialogue forum.... We need to take preventive action against such motivated obfuscations.... So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal point for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real norms, policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no other option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they exist.... parminder On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] > *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location > of data or its legal ownership > > Dear Andrew > > Have been following the conversation with interest. The point > Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring > that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised > at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that > indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding > as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and > principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has > been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If > we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to > repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! > > With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think > it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and > Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use > the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the > cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting > this current version was precisely in order to be precise and > coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process > and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness > then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. > > As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on > the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the > work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in > turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended > to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended > and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational > framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and > situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have > been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is > also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to > these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was > a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did > achieve something quite remarkable. > > Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at > least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that > these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online > and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in > this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP > Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker > parts of the current Beta version > (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen > awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn > organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in > recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being > done through Best Bits. > > Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, > here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC > Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles > are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual > Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance > Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports > implicitly. > > The only question I am getting from members is about how better to > work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in > establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No > need to reinvent the wheel in other words! > > best > MF > > On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that > the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a > lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like > the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has > done any detailed work on this in relation to > security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically > the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction > (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German > MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud > distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder > has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and > principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the > US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the > internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where > the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this > something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? > > Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy > is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity > and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference > with the right to privacy and should have the right to the > protection of the law against such interference or attacks. > > The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, > except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally > recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be > consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the > rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant > purpose. > > Participating companies will employ protections with respect to > personal information in all countries where they operate in order > to protect the privacy rights of users. > > Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy > rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or > regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with > internationally recognized laws and standards. > > Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting > – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even > when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally > recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that > FISA does? > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial > location of data or its legal ownership > > > This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know > that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery > grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of > the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that > the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. > The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, > social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an > absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And > this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about > - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. > > Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that > Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism > " > led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... > Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off > the hook with respect to the recent episodes. > > What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, > two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional > issues: The answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in > the US by companies based overseas), the government has > taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal > processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) > Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and > regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the > user is located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a > third party, including cloud computing services under US > civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law > is whether the information is under the "possession, > custody or control" of a party that is subject to US > jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is > physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, > importantly, where the person whose information is sought > is located. The issue for users is whether the US has > jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, > and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, > custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests > physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in > which a large US-based company was loosely related to a > subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, > custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary > and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an > European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the > transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US > borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the > contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim > that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as > serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to > European email could have carried classified information! > Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have > actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise > illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US > borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. > AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest > enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has > been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global > espionage (for instance see here > > )... Would all the information that AT & T has the > "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter > not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this > looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, > who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > > > > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still > need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies > in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are > being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that > everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from > the fact that there are news reports > > that US based tech companies regularly share data with US > gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even > simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not > forget that many of these companies have strong political > agenda which are closely associated with that of the US > gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas > ', its > revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its > own aggressive regime change ideas > . > Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA > region, and not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to > share data with US government extended only to such data > that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. > Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ > ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I > think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I > want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these > companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that > actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these > companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and > intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, > not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For > instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data > of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, > and shift all their data to servers in other countries > that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the > involved companies have set up near fictitious companies > headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax > avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of > protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, > of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very > efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand > that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the > data of citizens of a country within its border, there > isnt any law which can force these companies to hold > foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any > such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these > companies..... > > parminder > > > > > > -- > > Katitza Rodriguez > > International Rights Director > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > katitza at eff.org > > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex.comninos at gmail.com Wed Jun 26 13:30:19 2013 From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:30:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] New private list private@lists.bestbits.net In-Reply-To: <6BD6ED19-E0D0-4FAF-A5B6-F9A50DCB4587@acm.org> References: <51BA9272.1050701@ciroap.org> <6BD6ED19-E0D0-4FAF-A5B6-F9A50DCB4587@acm.org> Message-ID: Many people could in certain circumstances use anonymity for the functional equivalent of privacy. Perhaps rather we could investigate an option whereby people are ableto send anonymous mails to the public list? ... Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate Department of Geography | Justus Liebig University, Gießen http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos On 14 June 2013 15:54, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I don't beleive in closed lists, but when they exist I try to join them. And then hope they will eventually open. > > One thing to note, I have rarely seen a closed list actually be totally leak proof. > I think experience shows that closing something enables leakage, especially if anything someone considers inappropriate is done. > > I think that in Civil Society, considering how much is hidden from us, we should operate on a presumption of complete transparency, with the only exceptions involving privacy issues that can be explained transparently. > > I do appreciate, however, all the work you do Jeremy to get dialogues going and to provide the platforms for coperatinve work. > > avri > > > > On 13 Jun 2013, at 23:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I have just created a private Best Bits list for civil society participants only, without public archives. This is not intended as a replacement for the main list, as there are several participants who have strong views about in general being as open as we can be, and by and large I'm one of those. But there are also times when discretion is required, and the private list may be useful for those times. >> >> Nobody is being automatically subscribed to the private list. If you do wish to do so, you can request subscription here: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/subscribe/private >> >> Subscription requests will be vetted by the moderator, which is currently me, and if I am in doubt (eg. because I don't know who you are), then I will consult with the steering committee (or until that exists, on the main list) first. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Jun 26 13:32:22 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:32:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <20130626051309.1E65C1D0F8016@agora.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang for this pointer to the EU's ICT Sector Guide. The process of drafting the ICT Guide had another particularly useful aspect. The ICT Guide was done in parallel to guides to two other business sectors (employment and recruitment agencies, and oil and gas companies). There was a good balance between cross-fertilisation among the three areas, and the uniqueness of each area. For me, the level of commonality among the three business areas (ICT sector, employment/recruitment and oil/gas) was higher than I expected. Another initiative that may have relevance in the future, especially in the case of the 'securitisation' of the Internet space, is the Montreaux document on private military and security companies. Regards, Jovan *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* Director, DiploFoundation * Note: *If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience!* **Upcoming online courses at Diplo: *Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) *l* Humanitarian Diplomacy * l** *Capacity Development * l** * *Multilateral Diplomacy **l* * **Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources **l** **Complete Catalogue of Online Courses * ** On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > In this context I suggest a look at the recent guide by the EU Commission: > ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and > Human Rights. > > Kind regards > > Wolfgang > > Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > > > > > Am 25.06.13 17:59 schrieb "Andrew Puddephatt" unter > : > > >Just welcoming Parminder¹s focus on companies here. I feel that the > >current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more > >rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of > >global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed > >work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional > >questions ­ specifically the role of global companies rooted in one > >jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some > >German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud > >distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > > >I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has > >flagged up ­ we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing > >out this is a way for country¹s to escape the US orbit ­ as long as we > >can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national > >infrastructures ­ which is where the norms and principles need to be > >carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then > >discuss in person at Bali? > > > >Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > > > > >Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is > >important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and > >promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > > >Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the > >right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law > >against such interference or attacks. > > > >The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in > >narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws > >and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international > >human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and > >proportionate for the relevant purpose. > > > >Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal > >information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the > >privacy rights of users. > > > >Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of > >users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that > >compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally > >recognized laws and standards. > > > >Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting ­ it > >implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to > >comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and > >standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? > > > > > > > > > >Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >Executive Director > >Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >gp-digital.org > > > >From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > >Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 > >To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of > >data or its legal ownership > > > > > >This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > >system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much > >of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They > >find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in > >the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their > >best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, > >political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team > >leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been > >about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been > >about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. > > > >Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian > >Assange spoke of "technocratic > >imperialism< > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality- > >of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>" led by the US-Google > >combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so > >eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent > >episodes. > > > >What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two > >things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > >architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > >principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > >collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > >responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > > >But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > > >parminder > > > >On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > > >On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer > >is somewhat complex > > > >if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by > >companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it > >is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, > >2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular > >warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. > > > >The legal standard for production of information by a third party, > >including cloud computing services under US civil > >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal > >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the > >information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that > >is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn¹t matter where the information is > >physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, > >where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for > >users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service > >they use, and whether the cloud computing service has ³possession, > >custody or control² of their data, wherever it rests physically. For > >example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company > >was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have > >³possession, custody, or control² of the data held by the subsidiary and > >thus the data wasn¹t s > > ubject to US jurisdiction. > > > >Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European > >sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of > >the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be > >obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a > >country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as > >serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email > >could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions > >of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - > >or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into > >US borders. > > > >What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T > >(through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service > >provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over > >enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see > >here )... > >Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and > >control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access > >by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where > >are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > > >parminder > > > > > > > > > >On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > >Hi All > > > >There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a > >lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM > >plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that > >everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that > >there are news > >reports< > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap > >-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html> that US based tech companies > >regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in > >return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not > >forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which > >are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about > >'Google Ideas', its revolving > >doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime > >change ideas. > >Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, > > say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... > > > >Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data > >with US government extended only to such data that is actually located > >in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the > >legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I > >think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be > >absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > > >Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided > >in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was > >obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US > >citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For > >instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose > >citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their > >data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know > >that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies > >headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ > >evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, > >well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they > >so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > > >Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can > >be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country > >within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to > >hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act > >perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > > > >I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... > > > >parminder > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Katitza Rodriguez > > > >International Rights Director > > > >Electronic Frontier Foundation > > > >katitza at eff.org > > > >katitza at datos-personales.org > >(personal email) > > > > > > > >Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom > >of speech since 1990 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:00:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:00:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> Message-ID: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al l&pagewanted=print Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their behind-the-scenes transactions. The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence. In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said a person who attended. While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers. The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law." Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction. But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data. Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company. FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before. In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop. In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally. Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward information requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we stand with them in that fight." Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed to acknowledge them. Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon the president as he visited Silicon Valley. Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy dogs. On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook a call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term," he wrote. Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 27 01:15:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:45:50 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> References: <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51CBCA86.8020809@itforchange.net> From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired as India's Permanent Representative to the UN. Wide asleep on the net *Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs **/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current architecture of global internet governance/ Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National Security Agency of the United States government have revived discussions about the need for democratisation of the current architecture of global internet governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding about preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and avoiding control of content, the current system is anything but any of these. Behind this veneer, the economic, commercial and political interests of a powerful group are sought to be entrenched. The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and other communications based on the internet every month, in the name of counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and Pakistan and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter of concern for India. Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be expected to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; after all, many of them depend on global internet majors for their business, and have always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. Whenever discussions are held on the subject, the former find ways of occupying the space and manipulating opinions that echo the interests of the latter. India called for democratisation of global internet governance and proposed in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, to deal with international public policies relating to the internet. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of different elements of the proposal, there was an orchestrated cacophony in the media designed to drown any reasoned debate. Calls were made to force India to withdraw the proposal. India’s proposal was characterised as catastrophic, threatening a “UN takeover of the internet”, and doomed to bring down Indian IT firms. India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance has been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for democratisation of global internet governance were made by then ministers Arun Shourie in December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in Tunis in November 2005, at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). India pursued the implementation of the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the subject during the 2003 -05 period and the Tunis Agenda, which mandated that the “International management of the internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The report got implemented only in parts, through the setting up of the Internet Governance Forum whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised in recent months even by Western commentators and academics. The more important recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were buried deep, without any meaningful discussion of the options presented in the report. The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; substantially higher connectivity costs in developing countries located far from internet backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network stability and security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent and prosecute internet crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder participation; restrictions on freedom of expression; inconsistent application of privacy and data-protection rights; absence of global standards for consumer rights; insufficient progress towards multilingualism; and insufficient capacity-building in developing countries. The Indian proposal had only suggested that these very same issues, as well as policy issues that have evolved since WSIS, be considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the UN “take over the internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be overturned, as argued by the detractors. We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, India is sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the global rules for governance of the internet or management of critical internet resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another aspect that is seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European countries have with the current US-dominated model of global governance of the internet, as demonstrated by statements emanating from their officials, the number of legal disputes European bodies have launched against US internet majors, and attempts by countries like France to modify the existing system. Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and legal implications of the current model of internet governance had become quite apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange phenomenon and the WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of them. Concerns about shell companies and tax avoidance by global internet majors provide another instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third one. The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change in its policy even after the Snowden disclosures. Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning that Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors and that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. First, there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, independent of India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been demonstrating that they have more or less reached the maximum of the current models of their growth. Third, we need to work for the next generation of Indian IT companies, which can move up the value chain by creating their own branded services and products and leading global innovation in IT. In other words, we need to produce the next generation of Murthys and Premjis. This requires modifying the eco-system, architecture and infrastructure, both nationally and internationally, where such ventures can grow. This makes it imperative for India to become a lead player and shape the global ICT industry architecture that helps Indian ICT companies of the future. None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of democratising global internet governance and free ourselves from the current model where the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists for the current model of unilateral control. The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of WSIS in 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other leading democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the IBSA platform and with other like-minded countries in the UN for democratising global internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, transparent and democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda. The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to the UN *** On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen > realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of > what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated > society... And that the global civil society should pause, and > retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne > and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded > meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM > plus disclosures. > > Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the > present moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is > that we need to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil > society took the stance that less rather than more global IG is > better..... That was a mistake, and continues to be a mistake... > Internet is big, it is global, it transforms everything. And the > prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - governance of it > can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that - whether it > is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more global > IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will > involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil > society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, > unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... > > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around > it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I > think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, > Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN > General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, > participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by > the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how > intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how > how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... > > We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right > away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal > several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at > the global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD > level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the > right direction.... > > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some > real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been > around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes > privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly > were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. > Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... > > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak > about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these > guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC > list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data > retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. > ... What disclosures can and should the telecom and application > companies share about data hosting and transit, and applicability of > different jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We > need to drill down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens > only when there are clear focal points for policy development that > exist (See for instance the real work that is going on right now in > Marrakesh for writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed > material for the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen > the kind of joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy > dialogue forum.... We need to take preventive action against such > motivated obfuscations.... > > So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal > point for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real > norms, policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no > other option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they > exist.... > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org* >> >> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] >> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt >> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >> location of data or its legal ownership >> >> Dear Andrew >> >> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point >> Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring >> that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not >> jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is >> one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is >> proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights >> norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of >> work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS >> period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all >> doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! >> >> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do >> think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and >> Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I >> use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason >> for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was >> drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise >> and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this >> process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The >> cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. >> >> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on >> the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the >> work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin >> in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not >> intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What >> was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, >> inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around >> specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression >> and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around >> PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility >> of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have >> underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and >> for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. >> >> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at >> least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that >> these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online >> and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in >> this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP >> Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker >> parts of the current Beta version >> (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen >> awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn >> organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in >> recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being >> done through Best Bits. >> >> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF >> agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as >> the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten >> Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the >> actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet >> Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition >> supports implicitly. >> >> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to >> work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way >> in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. >> No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! >> >> best >> MF >> >> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that >> the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a >> lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like >> the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone >> has done any detailed work on this in relation to >> security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically >> the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction >> (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German >> MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud >> distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. >> >> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder >> has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and >> principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the >> US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the >> internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where >> the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this >> something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? >> >> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: >> >> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy >> is important to maintaining personal security, protecting >> identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. >> >> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference >> with the right to privacy and should have the right to the >> protection of the law against such interference or attacks. >> >> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, >> except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally >> recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be >> consistent with international human rights laws and standards, >> the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the >> relevant purpose. >> >> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to >> personal information in all countries where they operate in order >> to protect the privacy rights of users. >> >> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy >> rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or >> regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with >> internationally recognized laws and standards. >> >> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is >> interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect >> privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach >> internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume >> everyone thinks that FISA does? >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >> andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org* >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >> location of data or its legal ownership >> >> >> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist >> system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know >> that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery >> grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings >> of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know >> that the US establishement is their best political and legal >> cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, >> economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... >> It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been >> about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has >> been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken >> of here. >> >> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures >> that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism >> " >> led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... >> Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off >> the hook with respect to the recent episodes. >> >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, >> two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global >> Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place >> global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that >> will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us >> with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >> >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional >> issues: The answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in >> the US by companies based overseas), the government has >> taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal >> processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) >> Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and >> regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the >> user is located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a >> third party, including cloud computing services under US >> civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law >> is whether the information is under the "possession, >> custody or control" of a party that is subject to US >> jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is >> physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, >> importantly, where the person whose information is sought >> is located. The issue for users is whether the US has >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, >> and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, >> custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests >> physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in >> which a large US-based company was loosely related to a >> subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary >> and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> >> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an >> European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the >> transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US >> borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the >> contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country >> claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps >> as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to >> European email could have carried classified information! >> Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have >> actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise >> illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into >> US borders. >> >> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in >> India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the >> largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT >> & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's >> global espionage (for instance see here >> >> )... Would all the information that AT & T has the >> "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter >> not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All >> this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the >> limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still >> need to ask a lot of questions from the involved >> companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. >> We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that >> everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from >> the fact that there are news reports >> >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US >> gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even >> simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not >> forget that many of these companies have strong political >> agenda which are closely associated with that of the US >> gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >> ', its >> revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its >> own aggressive regime change ideas >> . >> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA >> region, and not other things in the same region..... >> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations >> to share data with US government extended only to such >> data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the >> US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal >> control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may >> reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, >> but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly >> from these companies.) >> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that >> actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these >> companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and >> intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, >> not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For >> instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US >> authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other >> countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that >> many of the involved companies have set up near >> fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for >> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not >> do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets >> only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what >> they so very efficiently did for enhancing their >> bottom-lines? >> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand >> that there can be some laws to force a company to hold >> the data of citizens of a country within its border, >> there isnt any law which can force these companies to >> hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the >> US gov? >> >> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these >> companies..... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Katitza Rodriguez >> >> International Rights Director >> >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >> katitza at eff.org >> >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> Dept. of Media & Communications >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >> >> @GloComm >> https://twitter.com/GloComm >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> @netrights > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Fri Jun 28 15:39:48 2013 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:39:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online Message-ID: With apologies for cross-posting... http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online *Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online* *Date: *Friday, June 28, 2013 In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the United States and other governments to increase the transparency, oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions concerning communications surveillance. *GNI Principles and the rule of law * GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacyare rooted in international human rights law, while also recognizing that companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they operate. GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding the appropriate balance between security and privacy and free expression. But international human rights standards set out narrowly defined circumstances under which governments may restrict the rights to free expression and privacy.1 GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict the right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. This is a global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make clear the need for informed public debate on whether legislative and judicial oversight of surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is consistent with international human rights standards and the rule of law. The lack of transparency in the United States around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the inability of companies to report on the requests they are receiving, make it difficult for companies operating in the United States to be transparent regarding their efforts to protect free expression and privacy. In light of this we call for three specific actions: *1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions to inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. * GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate declassification of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the FISC Court of Review. We recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions may be necessary in some cases but believe that greater declassification will enable informed public debate as well as improve public oversight of the nature and the scope of the government’s use of FISA authorities. *2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national security demands. * While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of national security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure obligations imposed on companies who receive FISA orders and National Security Letters (NSLs). These letters effectively and perpetually prohibit companies from reporting even in general terms, after the fact, on the national security demands they receive. Policymakers should seriously consider reforms that would require government authorities to make a factual showing to the court to demonstrate that harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or renewal of gag orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders. *3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance requests.* GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalitionfor their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and urges other governments to follow their lead. However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support Internet freedom. GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We also urge them to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. Annual reports, such as the U.S. Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner offer a starting point for more comprehensive disclosure of information about the number of national security surveillance orders made and the number of persons affected. *Next steps* GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., on behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed global public debate on the balance between national security and privacy and freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency reforms as necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. All governments have a responsibility to work together with the private sector and civil society to determine the narrowly defined circumstances (based on internationally recognized human rights laws and standards) under which surveillance can take place. We will continue to push for this dialogue and press governments to meet their obligation to protect the rights of freedom of expression and privacy for people all over the world. 1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR). Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information . -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jun 30 03:14:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:14:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130630091403.2931948d@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and > around it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal > point I think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, > Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN > General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, > participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by > the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how > intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how > how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... I agree that there is a need for some kind of structure and process that takes the discussions at the IGF as an input and creates outputs suitable for direct feeding into the various institutions and processes that make policy decisions. Parminder's proposal is to model this on OECD's CCICP, while I'm proposing to model it on the IETF (details on WisdomTaskForce.org ) What are the advantages of each of the two approaches? I'd suggest that the more bottom-up “Wisdom Task Force” (WisdomTF for short) approach has the advantages of 1) a bottom-up organization being easier to create especially in the current climate where there is strong opposition of any organization that aims at strengthening global Internet governance (those who can expect to lose power when public interest oriented governance is strengthened, and their friends, are of course opposing), and 2) by modeling on IETF it is much easier to take the step of making all the important drafting processes 100% Internet based, which is necessary to ensure that those who don't have a travel budget can fully participate, and 3) further, by modeling on IETF it is easier to create a system and culture in which working group deadlocks (that can occur when in a working group there is too little fundamental agreement on objectives etc.) can be resolved by forking the working group if necessary. > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some > real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been > around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes > privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly > were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. > Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... > > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak > about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these > guarantees operate, and the such. +1 Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 10:25:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:55:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51D03FE4.7030106@itforchange.net> On Sunday 30 June 2013 02:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c > > http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids Thanks for this... So sense has finally prevailed and the chapter of closed generics (.book etc being given as closed/ private gtlds to the Amazon company and the such) is, well, closed.... This is one of the most important pieces of information to come out of the domain name governance system for a long while.... Wonder, why the ICANN system/ community is so shy to share such real news of real concern to people..... I mean, I am on so many IG lists, and I hadnt heard about it.... (While one keeps hearing about all kinds of matters of 'form' - which meeting will be held and in which manner - a truly post modern scenario where 'form' seems to have entirely overtaken all concern for 'substance'.) Although, one can see why the ICANN system/ community might be a bit shame faced about it... Finally, it was clearly some extraneous factors that led to stopping of what would have been a loot of generic words by a few big corporations, already big enough, and dominating so many essential aspects of our digital lives, to be able to make solid capital out of exclusive digital ownership of these generic words which were supposed to be gifted to them by ICANN... (BTW, I wrote an op ed on the subject a few months back, which was followed by an editorial by the same newspaper.) So, now that the decision has been taken, we can turn our attention to the process.... One still isnt sure who is the real decision maker in the ICANN system... Basically the board? Which decides after taking an ad hoc stock of how the big powers - commercial and governmental (very importantly, the US) - are placed? And the board itself is selected largely by a hardly democratic nomcom process..... What of all the, so so celebrated, bottom up process, which in the present case so abjectly surrendered to big commercial interests. It completely failed to stop the generic words loot. It is this 'failure' in an area of work output which is central to domain name governance system that holds some very important lessons for us. And most of the civil society - if not all - involved in the ICANN system was complicit in it - I mean either actively supported, or simply went along with the closed generics proposal. Would this civil society - persons and groups - explain their stand and justifications to us, especially now that despite them we have been saved the loot of generic words in their digital address forms? Also, a pity that IGC never discussed this key substantive issue related to ICANN, while form related matter of ICANN are frequently discussed. Maybe, now we can discuss it as a post mortem. parminder > > Adam > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. >> The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. >> >> GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds >> (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" >> >> (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " >> >> I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. >> >> >> These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. >> >> Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... >> >> parminder >>> Best, >>> >>> Tom Lowenhaupt >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:31:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:31:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a5401ce6444$15792e20$406b8a60$@gmail.com> [New post] Responding to PRISM: The Internet is global. Dah. Who knew. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/responding-to-prism-the-internet-is -global-dah-who-knew/ http://tinyurl.com/lflphgd M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 09:32:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:32:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> So where does the "Technical Community" stand on these issues? (For example, lobbying the US Congress re: the Patriot Act is hardly appropriate as the response for a globally responsible and responsive community I would have thought.) M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > From joana at varonferraz.com Sat Jun 8 10:21:10 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:21:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Jeremy. I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address once they receive an email from the platform. For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ best joana On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we > shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open > for endorsements at the platform. > > So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through > this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits > platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help > us to upload the text? > > > It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by email, > please do so on the site too. > > Thanks. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 3 14:37:16 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:37:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3 Jun 2013, at 03:00, Joana Varon wrote: > > https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing > BTW, you have this set for viewing only. Might be worth opening it to comments. avri From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 17:29:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:29:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> Message-ID: <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil society. However, successful our US colleagues may be in taming/controlling/bringing to some degree of accountability and transparency this particular beast this will do effectively nothing for those in the rest of the world who are equally net-enabled citizens, users of the Internet, customers/clients/users of US based Internet dominant services such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and so on and for whom US law, the US constitution, and US accountability mechanisms (quite understandably) have no force. Even the development of alternative national counterparts won't do much since the opportunity and the temptation to undertake this kind of surveillance will always be there. We either give up on the idea of privacy altogether or we find a way of developing governance mechanisms that protect and provide accountability for all. M Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: [ NNSquad ] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Date: June 8, 2013 4:39:38 PM EDT To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done http://j.mp/10Z2q3A (DNI [PDF]) DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM. Of course the damage is already done, conspiracy nuts will never believe any of this, and what the government is admitting to doing is bad enough. A terrible, awful mess. I am disgusted. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608165856:3A129324-D07E-11E2-850E-C0903DE100BE Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jun 8 22:59:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 09:59:07 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, > denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue > requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil > society. Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that international organisations could support, yet international Internet users are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are. In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world. Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to have much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog has something to say about PRISM right now. If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. So we could perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council (particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). Or are there other international processes that people think would be an appropriate target for such an intervention? Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Sat Jun 8 23:04:22 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:04:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> We are working on a few international action focuses on protection of the privacy rights of foreigners, hopefully coming soon! On 6/8/13 10:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, >> denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global >> issue >> requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a >> global civil >> society. > > Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through > Best Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint > letter posted to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an > earlier reply), the joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not > something that international organisations could support, yet > international Internet users are are even more affected by the PRISM > scandal than US Internet users are. > > In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to > enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements > on human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of > Internet freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest > of the world. Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" > isn't going to have much cumulative effect at this point, because > everybody and their dog has something to say about PRISM right now. > > If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special > competence is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. > So we could perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United > Nations Human Rights Council (particularly in the light of Frank La > Rue's latest report, > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). > Or are there other international processes that people think would be > an appropriate target for such an intervention? > > Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we > don't issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jun 8 23:10:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 10:10:15 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/2013, at 10:04 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > We are working on a few international action focuses on protection of the privacy rights of foreigners, hopefully coming soon! That's great, but it is problematic for a us to rely on a US-based organisation to represent the interests of non-US citizens on this US-based human rights incursion. I don't think it's appropriate for international Internet users (and non-users) to hang their hopes on what EFF does, and that's not intended in any way as a criticism of EFF (because as I hope you know, I'm a strong supporter). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Sat Jun 8 23:13:03 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:13:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> Message-ID: <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) On 6/8/13 11:10 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/06/2013, at 10:04 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > >> We are working on a few international action focuses on protection of >> the privacy rights of foreigners, hopefully coming soon! > > That's great, but it is problematic for a us to rely on a US-based > organisation to represent the interests of non-US citizens on this > US-based human rights incursion. I don't think it's appropriate for > international Internet users (and non-users) to hang their hopes on > what EFF does, and that's not intended in any way as a criticism of > EFF (because as I hope you know, I'm a strong supporter). > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Sat Jun 8 23:24:45 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:24:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think that a statement focused on the human rights of non-Americans, spinning off of the Larue report, would be an *incredibly* helpful addition to the dialogue right now--especially if Frank were directly involved. Also and not for nothing--I want to apologize both for my government's actions, and for a local US civil society coalition--self included--that could have done a better job considering the rights and perspectives of non-US stakeholders when framing our response to this news. Sincerely. We will do better. We've just been scrambling in the face of an avalanche of awful revelations. Sent via mobile On Jun 8, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, >> denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue >> requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil >> society. > > Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that international organisations could support, yet international Internet users are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are. > > In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world. Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to have much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog has something to say about PRISM right now. > > If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. So we could perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council (particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). Or are there other international processes that people think would be an appropriate target for such an intervention? > > Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 00:01:15 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:01:15 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Kevin, I guess that should be about Human rights of everybody, and highlighting the impact on americans and non americans, reminding USG engagements to all treaties and conventions it ratified (and also pushing for signing CoE 108 convention for example) . we dont need to make distinction between users based on nationality. we need to react to all issues as coalition , we have yet another example of national government decision going beyond its borders. this coalition is aiming to be space for civil society to act globally and coordinate actions, we have such action this time and hopefully we won't be dragged in ideological fights. Best, Rafik 2013/6/9 Kevin Bankston > I think that a statement focused on the human rights of non-Americans, > spinning off of the Larue report, would be an *incredibly* helpful addition > to the dialogue right now--especially if Frank were directly involved. > > Also and not for nothing--I want to apologize both for my government's > actions, and for a local US civil society coalition--self included--that > could have done a better job considering the rights and perspectives of > non-US stakeholders when framing our response to this news. Sincerely. We > will do better. We've just been scrambling in the face of an avalanche of > awful revelations. > > Sent via mobile > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, > denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue > requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global > civil > society. > > > Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best > Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted > to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the > joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that > international organisations could support, yet international Internet users > are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are. > > In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to > enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on > human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet > freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world. > Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to > have much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog > has something to say about PRISM right now. > > If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence > is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. So we could > perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights > Council (particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report, > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). > Or are there other international processes that people think would be an > appropriate target for such an intervention? > > Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't > issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 9 00:10:35 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 11:10:35 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> Message-ID: On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. From kbankston at cdt.org Sun Jun 9 00:11:11 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 21:11:11 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C7B8549-FEB0-4DE1-A89A-BBAFC5180323@cdt.org> If the coalition advocated for the human rights of all humans, Americans as well as non-Americans, I would be honored and delighted :-) Sent via mobile On Jun 8, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I guess that should be about Human rights of everybody, and highlighting the impact on americans and non americans, reminding USG engagements to all treaties and conventions it ratified (and also pushing for signing CoE 108 convention for example) . we dont need to make distinction between users based on nationality. we need to react to all issues as coalition , we have yet another example of national government decision going beyond its borders. > > this coalition is aiming to be space for civil society to act globally and coordinate actions, we have such action this time and hopefully we won't be dragged in ideological fights. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/6/9 Kevin Bankston >> I think that a statement focused on the human rights of non-Americans, spinning off of the Larue report, would be an *incredibly* helpful addition to the dialogue right now--especially if Frank were directly involved. >> >> Also and not for nothing--I want to apologize both for my government's actions, and for a local US civil society coalition--self included--that could have done a better job considering the rights and perspectives of non-US stakeholders when framing our response to this news. Sincerely. We will do better. We've just been scrambling in the face of an avalanche of awful revelations. >> >> Sent via mobile >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >>> >>>> What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, >>>> denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue >>>> requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil >>>> society. >>> >>> Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that international organisations could support, yet international Internet users are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are. >>> >>> In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world. Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to have much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog has something to say about PRISM right now. >>> >>> If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. So we could perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council (particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). Or are there other international processes that people think would be an appropriate target for such an intervention? >>> >>> Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Sun Jun 9 00:24:17 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:24:17 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> Message-ID: <51B40371.6040501@eff.org> No mis-interpreation at all : ) You did not know what we are working on. : ) You only see part of our work. I think it is important that Best Bits issue its own statement. It's a global coalition so its good. Thanks for your work : ) FYI: I have also asked Frank about him issuing a statement too. PI and I were with him earlier this week at the Human Rights Council meeting for the release of his latest report. On 6/9/13 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) > Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 3 14:49:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:19:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?The_Banality_of_=E2=80=98Don=E2=80=99t_Be_Ev?= =?UTF-8?Q?il=E2=80=99?= Message-ID: <51ACE538.2090207@itforchange.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?_r=0 Reading this article by Julian Assange, most people will be left with a gnawing feeling of deep concern and worry, but they may only be able to frown and fret helplessly about where the world seems headed. However, those among the Internet governance civil society will perhaps have to read it with a certain sense of introspection and political responsibility.... I think it is worth having a discussion in the IGC on this article, examining what needs the support of civil society and maybe what doesn't so much, assuming there is at least some significance to what Assange writes. Article also cut pastes below.... The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ By JULIAN ASSANGE “THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google , and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas. The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy. The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances. “The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book. In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire. The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed. The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes). The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.” “His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.” The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran. Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency. Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush. I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones. The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends. The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret. This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 03:33:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 03:33:32 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> Message-ID: <027201ce64e3$a9239bc0$fb6ad340$@gmail.com> Just to quote from a fairly prominent European on another list Another thing is that if Americans are upset by the revelations about the PRISM project, how do you think that others in the world feel. All of us are suddenly declared dangerous enemies of the USof A, which acts like an electronic empire that can do whatever they want everywhere to us natives of the foreign banana republics. and http://t.co/4vELGeAZEm M -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 12:11 AM To: katitza at eff.org Cc: michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; webwewant at googlegroups.com; Rainey Reitman; Jillian York; Danny O'Brien Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at eff.org> wrote: > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know.= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 04:10:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data Message-ID: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is another question of course). What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out. Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes might provide to their citizens. Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more or less non-operational. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" to these revelations. M From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 04:46:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:46:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data In-Reply-To: <13f280489a4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> <13f280489a4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <029e01ce64ed$e2ab7fc0$a8027f40$@gmail.com> A good discussion perhaps for a journalism school (how to characterize levels of complicity) but nothing written there changes anything material about the revelations. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:19 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data And as a counterpoint I would appreciate your comments on this http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-jo urnalism-7000016570/ --srs (htc one x) On 9 June 2013 1:40:45 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is another question of course). What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out. Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes might provide to their citizens. Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more or less non-operational. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" to these revelations. M From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 05:02:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 05:02:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02a301ce64f0$1eb155b0$5c140110$@gmail.com> Jeremy and all, I think that it is very important that the central element of these revelations which is that the entire world are seen as potential threats and thus fair game for whatever surveillance the USG and its witting or unwitting (or partially witting) US corporate collaborators choose to apply and the fact that there would appear to be no meaningful rights and few protections except for US citizens/residents needs to be articulated. Drafting isn't a long suit for me (I'm better at editing and redrafting) but I'll participate as might be useful. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:59 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil society. Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best Bits? As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that international organisations could support, yet international Internet users are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are. In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to enable a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on human rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet freedom groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world. Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to have much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog has something to say about PRISM right now. If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence is in our knowledge of relevant international processes. So we could perhaps write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council (particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A .HRC.23.40_EN.pdf). Or are there other international processes that people think would be an appropriate target for such an intervention? Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sun Jun 9 13:47:07 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:47:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Message-ID: Dear all, I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition of governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution ( A/HRC/RES/20/8) is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of course subject to change. It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a statement. In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. Best, Deborah On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know > what we are up to : ) > > Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds > like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights > Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone > who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Jun 9 14:15:45 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:15:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear All, If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm sure they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an excellent idea, and a timely one- on Monday (10 June) the coalition of governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution (A/HRC/RES/20/8) is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and USA. I understand that they are planning to deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of course subject to change. > > It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a statement. > > In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) > > Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jun 9 16:07:04 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:07:04 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear All, > > If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm sure > they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. > > On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an > excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition of > governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution ( > A/HRC/RES/20/8) > is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that > resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, > Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to > deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. > IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And > taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, > there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of > course subject to change. > > It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be submitted > 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) and that > requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours preceding the > relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone knows of an > ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the HRC) which > might have put in a request for an oral intervention under agenda item 8 > (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of > Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to surveillance > and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a statement. > > In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this > discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have > you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start > the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for > significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming > from a global coalition. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know >> what we are up to : ) >> >> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds >> like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights >> Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone >> who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jun 9 16:44:44 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:44:44 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. > > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm sure >> they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. >> >> On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an >> excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition of >> governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution ( >> A/HRC/RES/20/8) >> is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that >> resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, >> Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to >> deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. >> IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And >> taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, >> there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of >> course subject to change. >> >> It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be >> submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) >> and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours >> preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone >> knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the >> HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under >> agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and >> Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to >> surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a >> statement. >> >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >> coming from a global coalition. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>> > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you >>> know what we are up to : ) >>> >>> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds >>> like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights >>> Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone >>> who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Sun Jun 9 16:51:32 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 16:51:32 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <51B4EAD4.1060200@eff.org> i think this is a good idea. I can't work on this right now as I have to finish another piece that should go up on Monday (hopefully). But the more the merrier. this topic is really important and we need to get the word out through all the means we have. I'll try to look at the piece later today and add comments! On 6/9/13 4:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. > > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article > 19, I'm sure they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow > or know who is around. > > On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council >> is an excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 >> June)* the coalition of governments that led the "Human >> Rights and the Internet" resolution (A/HRC/RES/20/8 >> ) >> is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the >> principles of that resolution. This core group, led by >> Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. >> *I understand that they are planning to deliver the statement >> under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. IMHO this >> would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. >> And taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest >> of the week, there doesn't really seem to be an equally >> opportune time, but that's of course subject to change. >> >> It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must >> be submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're >> too late there) and that requests for oral interventions must >> be confirmed 24 hours preceding the relevant meetings (so >> again we're late). However if anyone knows of an ECOSOC >> accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the HRC) >> which might have put in a request for an oral intervention >> under agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the >> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action) and might be >> interested in raising issues relating to surveillance and >> human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a >> statement. >> >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, >> which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work >> on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting >> process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for >> significant participation from a diversity of groups so that >> this is coming from a global coalition. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> >> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez >> > wrote: >> >> > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our >> work so you know what we are up to : ) >> >> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to >> misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel >> intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try >> to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who >> wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please >> let me know. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 16:53:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 16:53:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NSA whistleblower revealed Message-ID: <049f01ce6553$64b5f3a0$2e21dae0$@gmail.com> Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower -surveillance The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said. From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 3 14:50:12 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:50:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry for that. Done. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2013, at 03:00, Joana Varon wrote: > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > BTW, you have this set for viewing only. > Might be worth opening it to comments. > > avri > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jun 9 16:55:02 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:55:02 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B4EAD4.1060200@eff.org> References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> <51B4EAD4.1060200@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Katitza On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > i think this is a good idea. I can't work on this right now as I have to > finish another piece that should go up on Monday (hopefully). But the more > the merrier. this topic is really important and we need to get the word out > through all the means we have. I'll try to look at the piece later today > and add comments! > > > > > > On 6/9/13 4:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm >>> sure they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. >>> >>> On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an >>> excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition >>> of governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution ( >>> A/HRC/RES/20/8) >>> is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that >>> resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, >>> Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to >>> deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. >>> IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And >>> taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, >>> there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of >>> course subject to change. >>> >>> It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be >>> submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) >>> and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours >>> preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone >>> knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the >>> HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under >>> agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and >>> Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to >>> surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a >>> statement. >>> >>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >>> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >>> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >>> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >>> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >>> coming from a global coalition. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>> > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you >>>> know what we are up to : ) >>>> >>>> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. >>>> Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human >>>> Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. >>>> Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me >>>> know. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun Jun 9 17:29:54 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 23:29:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> <51B4EAD4.1060200@eff.org> Message-ID: <51B4F3D2.2030908@apc.org> Hi all Good luck with drafting. I just had a short talk with Deborah. People to write to about tomorrow: Philippe Dam "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" sheherezade at arc-international.net Joy who will be online soon can probably help us figure out who has speaking slots under Item 8 tomorrow afternoon. I also think some governments might be happy to raise it.. e.g. Ecuador. Will try to get a message to them. Anriette On 09/06/2013 22:55, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Katitza > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> i think this is a good idea. I can't work on this right now as I have to >> finish another piece that should go up on Monday (hopefully). But the more >> the merrier. this topic is really important and we need to get the word out >> through all the means we have. I'll try to look at the piece later today >> and add comments! >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/9/13 4:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: >> >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm >>>> sure they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. >>>> >>>> On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an >>>> excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition >>>> of governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution ( >>>> A/HRC/RES/20/8) >>>> is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that >>>> resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, >>>> Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to >>>> deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. >>>> IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And >>>> taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, >>>> there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of >>>> course subject to change. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be >>>> submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) >>>> and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours >>>> preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone >>>> knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the >>>> HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under >>>> agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and >>>> Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to >>>> surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >>>> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >>>> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >>>> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >>>> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >>>> coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you >>>>> know what we are up to : ) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. >>>>> Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human >>>>> Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. >>>>> Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me >>>>> know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From joy at apc.org Sun Jun 9 18:16:23 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:16:23 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> <51B4EAD4.1060200@eff.org> Message-ID: <51B4FEB7.6020707@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi - just pitching in = I think there are one or two other strategies: 1. Withdrawal of the statement - it does not have to be presented: it is only a cross regional statement not a formal resolution so there maybe some procedural options worth exploring. I am not sure what the chances are of withdrawal, but if there was time for enough groups to raise concerns with their governments it is a possibility (though a slim one) But we can contact as many governments as possible that are supporting the statement and raise concerns: asking either to withdraw the statement or withdraw their support for it - a poor showing would be useful in my view 2. if it proceeds then I agree wiht the idea of the proposed civil society statement on the agenda item. I have commented on the statement - Oral statements can only 2 minutes long - so while the full written statement can be longer (and go a a press release of some kind) , the actual delivery can only be 2 minutes. I suggest the written statement be circulated more widely - APC is happy to put its logo on as an ECOSOC accredited group. 3. As noted, speaking slots will already be allocated. I can also contact Michael Ineichen at ISFR, Privacy International - let's try to coordinate - what is eaiser a single email to all or multiple - i would think the former? I suggest we ask one of our CSO friends to: * go to the OHCHR desk in the main room tomorrow morning and check the NGO speaking slots - see if one of our colleagues is among them and, if so, ask for collaboration on the statement being prepared * ask for them to help distribute it * get a twitter chat going on #HRC23 about the debate and bring pressure and focus on our CSO statement 4. the proposed HRC action - really think this should also be raised at the IGF Other ideas? Joy On 10/06/2013 8:55 a.m., Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Katitza > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > > i think this is a good idea. I can't work on this right now as I have to finish another piece that should go up on Monday (hopefully). But the more the merrier. this topic is really important and we need to get the word out through all the means we have. I'll try to look at the piece later today and add comments! > > > > > > On 6/9/13 4:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: >> >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: >> >> I know its late, but I'm up for drafting it. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> If someone knows someone from Human Rights Watch or Article 19, I'm sure they'll either have someone at the HRC tomorrow or know who is around. >> >> On 9 Jun 2013, at 19:47, Deborah Brown > wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I think a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council is an excellent idea, and a timely one- *on Monday (10 June)* the coalition of governments that led the "Human Rights and the Internet" resolution (A/HRC/RES/20/8 ) is planning a cross-regional statement to reaffirm the principles of that resolution. This core group, led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and *USA. *I understand that they are planning to deliver the statement under agenda item 8, which is at 15:00 Geneva time. IMHO this would be the time to deliver a civil society intervention. And taking a look at the HRC's programme of work for the rest of the week, there doesn't really seem to be an equally opportune time, but that's of course subject to change. >>> >>> It is my understanding that written statements from NGOs must be submitted 2 weeks ahead of the session's opening (so we're too late there) and that requests for oral interventions must be confirmed 24 hours preceding the relevant meetings (so again we're late). However if anyone knows of an ECOSOC accredited NGO (i.e. an NGO w/speaking rights at the HRC) which might have put in a request for an oral intervention under agenda item 8 (Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action) and might be interested in raising issues relating to surveillance and human rights, perhaps we could work with them to deliver a statement. >>> >>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: >>> >>> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >>> >>> > Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) >>> >>> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtP63AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bql4QH/iS9qxcJrpwXQiQotbwlpbu1 heYmimnBHarw5CNi98HlwYK47jtnDjiatkfQ+D8Pf95z8pXYZHqUJ3NTQXd3AJCc c5iDjW7wUUN/xSCVQNRVVvwPQ9TkuU+PHIwZw7g69gD2ZvpQOqoG9WN8PHEzeOPX yN0nLDHCGrOky6YWIGNG3ON8AcXkQqH34glXu62MWkN+ZuRHktrozS2djVBW+3WR PTe5OnXUytlt9wZot5j0mBKZnAdN3297dviBB1LZb4lOQKB+96krvdptxRuZxMcq bjedk1u776T+f+iYBvLm2ZbJrtrmptxHzM7Z8G/kLlfMTvEbPolrJbukPKwcJjM= =jF/U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Sun Jun 9 11:02:10 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 17:02:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> <51B3F0B6.4060707@eff.org> <51B3F2BF.7010000@eff.org> Message-ID: <4A21114E-2F3C-421A-8743-FF2A5C2FC0BB@webfoundation.org> Does anyone have access to international human rights lawyer for fast pro bono advice on non-US implications & remedies? I can try some contacts tmw... Anne Jellema CEO World Wide Web Foundation www.webfoundation.org Mob +27 61 0369352 On 09 Jun 2013, at 4:53 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > We'd like to help, Jeremy. > Best > Anne > > Anne Jellema > CEO > World Wide Web Foundation > www.webfoundation.org > Mob +27 61 0369352 > > > On 09 Jun 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 9 Jun, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> Go ahead. I was just complementing your comment to our work so you know what we are up to : ) >> >> Thanks Katitza and Jillian, good work and sorry to misinterpret. Sounds like there is support for a parallel intervention via the Human Rights Council, so I will try to find some time to put together an outline. Anyone who wishes to join in crafting the first iteration, please let me know. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 9 20:31:51 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:31:51 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <0000013f2a26ad3c-0847501a-7999-497d-9da5-f68e90ce5b09-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <7349B3F9-7BC8-4B93-ABC6-CE5F4D47A2A4@ciroap.org> On 10/06/2013, at 3:44 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > We are starting it here. Any collaboration is welcome: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/Human_Rights_Council_on_PRISM Sorry that I joined late, it is the worst possible timing for me as I am literally flying back to Malaysia right now. But pitching in now as I can. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 9 20:50:28 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:50:28 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 21:16:46 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:16:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jun 9 22:25:07 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:25:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our statement for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, please, do so: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important statements in the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous efforts on other inter-related topics.) Kind regards Joana On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy. > > I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already endorsed > the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address once they > receive an email from the platform. > > For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > best > > joana > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open >> for endorsements at the platform. >> >> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >> us to upload the text? >> >> >> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >> email, please do so on the site too. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 00:37:49 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:37:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. Best, Deborah Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement [2] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf ENDS On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching > issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: > I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and > companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human > rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I > believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, > and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. > This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; > the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made > public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to > always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what > facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the > presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this > discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have > you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start > the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for > significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming > from a global coalition. > > > Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on > bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the > pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll > need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in > the air until then. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Jun 10 02:05:44 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:05:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Deborah, As a point of information, I believe NGO statements are limited to 2 minutes. On 10 Jun 2013 06:37, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council > regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft > statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who > might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still > publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in > the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate > endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel > comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can > add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this > statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at > 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame > we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies > for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking > forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of > State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from > ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express > strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and > telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of > the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access > to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United > Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the > globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are > universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may > even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil > and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during > this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported > (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications > with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy > and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that > inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for > arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in > communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right > to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross > regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. > But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this > statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious > revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the > personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the > oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that > court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights > of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the > data streams of the globally central service providers storing and > communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a > backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This > raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of > human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they > might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect > to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the > violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately > suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, > the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As > Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor > should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by > citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this > case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental > human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in > promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically > relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert > Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the > Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global > Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would > be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to > support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee > develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements > > [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching >> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: >> I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and >> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >> coming from a global coalition. >> >> >> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >> pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll >> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >> the air until then. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 4 04:02:16 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:02:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FW: IGF 2013 Workshop Assessment Result In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We now have a workshop at the main IGF event From: Internet Governance Forum [mailto:igf at unog.ch] Sent: 03 June 2013 15:02 To: Andrew Puddephatt Subject: IGF 2013 Workshop Assessment Result Dear Andrew Puddephatt, Thank you for submitting the proposed workshop "#36 Who governs the internet – how people can have a voice" to be considered for the 8th Annual IGF Meeting to be held in Bali, Indonesia. We have the pleasure of informing you that your workshop has been accepted by the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for IGF 2013 provided the following is completed by 10 July. 1. A complete list of the panellists, indicating their status as "confirmed" 2. An agenda of the workshop 3. Registering the panellists and uploading their biographies on the IGF website, so that their information can be included in the programme material. If you have not yet assigned a remote moderator to the workshop, please do so by 10 July. Editing will be enabled on the online form shortly. It was also noted at the MAG meeting that there is a lack of least developed and developing countries representation across all workshops and we therefore encourage you to include a panellist from these under represented regions. Please note that a resource person list is provided on the IGF website to assist workshop organizers to reach a balance among their workshop panellists. You can access the list at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/resource-persons/list-of-resource-persons Additionally, if you have not provided a background paper, we also encourage you to do so. We look forward to working together to make the 8th Annual IGF Meeting a resounding success. Sincerely, IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Mon Jun 10 02:13:00 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:13:00 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B56E6C.2090602@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Exactly Nick- that is why the aim is to be as short as possible. At this stage also we are not sure that we cn get a slot - so it may be limited to one para only that is read out - but the whole statement can still be released best Joy On 10/06/2013 6:05 p.m., Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear Deborah, > > As a point of information, I believe NGO statements are limited to 2 minutes. > > On 10 Jun 2013 06:37, "Deborah Brown" > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: >> >>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtW5sAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1U0IAI40InxuuyD+xa3qFjrwbnGo 2Da5aw+wcqXuzk85lzI+Zy7HnSY58bAbNVRLz422OERr2890zU8Ndua65pI+2NU4 vWVZwVfm9O+zulkrIP5zIHzBisza343jkxK5JQWaXk+MpDkx9ZjkqPGYKysZFnGM Y352PL4uqU1EaeQRogjkOUPo0klu7gU5I88QkdQV31p8Sl0dLtRkeBnlX4QklfdW JIk+O0/PWX0U+XGdRFwpc/fVB0rZ/XC1e3AiQ7WTqJguUFGkv9BFbWQ28G8weiiC ChZGPFQDVvfihZrvtSR4j1iEvSn0NQ+gh/luSSvLtP9tPBq0a2nUgBDBdO45uPk= =pNYm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 10 03:02:29 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:02:29 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good. Thanks for keeping this going through out the night. Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil signs the letter. Deborah, just to help to concretize the list of signatures, organizations that has already signalized its support in the document: - Global Voices Advocacy - Bolo Bhi, Pakistan On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council > regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft > statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who > might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still > publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in > the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate > endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel > comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can > add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this > statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at > 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame > we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies > for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking > forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of > State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from > ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express > strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and > telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of > the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access > to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United > Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the > globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are > universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may > even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil > and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during > this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported > (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications > with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy > and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that > inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for > arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in > communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right > to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross > regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. > But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this > statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious > revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the > personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the > oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that > court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights > of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the > data streams of the globally central service providers storing and > communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a > backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This > raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of > human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they > might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect > to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the > violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately > suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, > the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As > Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor > should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by > citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this > case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental > human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in > promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically > relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert > Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the > Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global > Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would > be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to > support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee > develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements > > [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching >> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: >> I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and >> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >> coming from a global coalition. >> >> >> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >> pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll >> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >> the air until then. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 03:51:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:51:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130610095121.05cda45b@quill.bollow.ch> Michael, given that the Patriot Act requires US companies and their daughter companies worldwide to honor (without any effective checks and balances) privacy-infringing information demands from the US government (even when doing so is against local laws), repealing the Patriot Act will IMO indeed remove one major global problem. Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:56:57 -0400 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't > see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian > Internet users. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Great... > > > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are > > we opposing? > > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Jun 10 04:11:05 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:11:05 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] US Surveillance/PRISM leak and responses In-Reply-To: <51B57EBD.9050609@gold.ac.uk> References: <51B57EBD.9050609@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <51B58A19.3030601@gold.ac.uk> Dear all Many of you are following the debate I am sure on the recent news on how internet users around the world and their human rights online are possibly affected by how the US Patriot Act can allow surveillance at a global level. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html The Best Bits coalition is taking the lead in organizing a clear response to the implications of this leaked information and I would urge all IRP Coalition members, particularly those with legal expertise, to get involved with the drafting, post haste. As the IRP Charter is directly relevant to these recent events, indeed its whole purpose and aim to provide a baseline for just these sorts of occurrences and responses to them, this case is a timely even if a worrying one for anyone in the coalition concerned about how law can be (mis)used to serve ends that are detrimental to human rights. The news broke late last week so a lot has to happen quickly. I will forward a couple of mails relevant to how the current mobilization is unfolding. Do coalition members agree that we should lend our support to this action? It will result no doubt in a statement and some interventions from the floor so all the more reason to get involved and make a contribution now. best MF > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 04:38:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:08:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> Hi All IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? Best, parminder On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights > Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. > The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva > based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and > if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this > thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits > site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or > individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and > apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of > State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations > from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. > We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of > internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by > the government of the United States of America. Equally concerning is > the provision of access to the results of that surveillance to other > governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the > possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet > companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. These > revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant > and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles > 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the > cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is > important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments > supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are > ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in > the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed under > this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the > data streams of the globally central service providers storing and > communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a > backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: > "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial > commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals > to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge > decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An > immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the > violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. > As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers > ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government > action by citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers > involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat > violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. > Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and > upholding the human rights of all. > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically > relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 > Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore > call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of > a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council > could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a > multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue > that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the > right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: > > I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever > groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to > challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they > have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with > specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the > language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and > put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not > justified. This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact > that anything else; the debate will continue and many of the facts > will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a > strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for > transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are > presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > of convincing arguments/facts. > On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: >> >>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released >>> around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends >>> this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an >>> outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. >>> My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant >>> participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming >>> from a global coalition. >> >> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement >> on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it >> there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to >> instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >> the air until then. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 10 04:47:47 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:47:47 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. And thanks for the comprehension. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have > liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. > Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been > mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not > Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on > this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. > Wonder if Joy is still there? > > Best, parminder > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council > regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft > statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who > might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still > publish it and do outreach. > > Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread > in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to > facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals > feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we > can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this > statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at > 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame > we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. > > Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and > apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. > Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. > > Best, > Deborah > > Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of > State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from > ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express > strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and > telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of > the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access > to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United > Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the > globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are > universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may > even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil > and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during > this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported > (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications > with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy > and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that > inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for > arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in > communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right > to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] > > Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross > regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. > But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this > statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious > revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the > personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the > oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that > court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights > of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the > data streams of the globally central service providers storing and > communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a > backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This > raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of > human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they > might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect > to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the > violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately > suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, > the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. > As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor > should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by > citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this > case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental > human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in > promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically > relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert > Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the > Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global > Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would > be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to > support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee > develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements > > [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > ENDS > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching >> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: >> I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and >> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> wrote: >> >> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >> coming from a global coalition. >> >> >> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >> pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll >> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >> the air until then. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 10 05:25:17 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:55:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, The Internet Democracy Project will be signing this as well. Parminder, could you explain why you felt company names should be removed? Just wondering. Also, if we are contacting Catalina, would it be worthwhile to write to Dunja as well? I'd be happy to do so. Is it an endorsement we want from them, or something else? Just a last minute edit to propose - in the following two paras I have moved the sentence that starts with "although the personal information disclosed under this programme..." to the end, as I felt this made a stronger argument. The reason I propose to do so is because its current location immediately made me wonder about sovereignty issues and the extent to which states have the obligations to protect the rights of non-citizens and non-residents. By moving the sentence we have a greater chance of pre-empting such questions: "Affirmation of Internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. The introductionof surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: * "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." *Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. [delete: An immediate response is...] Would people be ok with this change? Finally, I didn't understand why some of the suggestions regarding possible actions had been taken out of the main text. Could someone maybe clarify? Many thanks, Anja On 10 June 2013 14:17, Joana Varon wrote: > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have >> liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. >> Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been >> mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> >> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not >> Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on >> this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. >> Wonder if Joy is still there? >> >> Best, parminder >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights >> Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The >> draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based >> orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we >> can still publish it and do outreach. >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread >> in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to >> facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals >> feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we >> can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this >> statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at >> 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame >> we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and >> apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. >> Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of >> State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from >> ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express >> strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and >> telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of >> the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access >> to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United >> Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the >> globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are >> universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may >> even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil >> and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which >> "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be >> protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during >> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported >> (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications >> with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy >> and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that >> inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for >> arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in >> communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right >> to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross >> regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. >> But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this >> statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious >> revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the >> personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the >> oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that >> court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights >> of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the >> data streams of the globally central service providers storing and >> communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a >> backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This >> raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of >> human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they >> might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect >> to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the >> violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately >> suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council >> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, >> the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. >> As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor >> should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by >> citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this >> case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental >> human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in >> promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically >> relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert >> Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the >> Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global >> Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would >> be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to >> support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >> develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of >> technological advancements >> >> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> ENDS >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >> >>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching >>> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: >>> I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and >>> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >>> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >>> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >>> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >>> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >>> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >>> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >>> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >>> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >>> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>> wrote: >>> >>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around >>> this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >>> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >>> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time >>> for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is >>> coming from a global coalition. >>> >>> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >>> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >>> pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll >>> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in >>> the air until then. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Mon Jun 10 05:26:03 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:26:03 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged approach to the call to action which is looking really good: "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. Joy On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., Joana Varon wrote: > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi All > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > Best, parminder > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> >> [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >> [2] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> ENDS >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: >>> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= =/bjR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 05:33:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:03:13 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B599CD.9010305@itforchange.net> References: <51B599CD.9010305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B59D59.7010903@itforchange.net> very sorry Mis typed I mean to say the names of the companies should be mentioned... (they are not mentioned at present) On Monday 10 June 2013 02:17 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi All > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the > HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > Best, parminder > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights >> Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching >> out to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with >> delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do >> outreach. >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this >> thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >> organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this >> draft, please reply on this thread and we can add your name >> through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement >> would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at >> 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best >> time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and >> apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working >> together to get this finalized. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the >> PRISM/NSA case >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a >> truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent >> revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone >> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of >> the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision >> of access to the results of that surveillance to other >> governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the >> possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based >> Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may >> even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights >> as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International >> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as >> Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must >> also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression >> ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom >> of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state >> surveillance of communications with serious implications for the >> exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion >> and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for >> arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in >> communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of >> the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the >> cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >> Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned >> that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, >> and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about >> mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal >> information disclosed under this programme is subject to the >> oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court >> (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for >> ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> of the data streams of the globally central service providers >> storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital >> communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital >> age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard >> to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations >> and the inability of individuals to know that they might be >> subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect >> to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response >> is needed. >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users >> globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would >> uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding >> Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect >> and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate >> oversight of government action by citizens." We urge States >> protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support >> their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human >> rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical >> role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of >> all. >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the >> Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act >> swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based >> surveillance system. One action the Council could take would be >> to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder >> process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the >> Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the >> right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> >> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> ENDS >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> > wrote: >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever >> groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most >> powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to >> explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human >> rights violations, with specific details to explain their >> stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting can >> fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show >> how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate >> will continue and many of the facts will probably never be >> made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for >> civil society to always be calling for transparency and >> basing its conclusions on both what facts are presented, and >> what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of >> convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC >>>> session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the >>>> chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help >>>> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we >>>> have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global >>>> coalition. >>> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours >>> before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can >>> pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then >>> I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, >>> because I'll be in the air until then. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>> consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>> | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>> . >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>> from it, send an email to >>> webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>> . >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 05:37:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:07:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> I support this text by Joy... On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > >> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > facilitating input and sign on. > >> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > get this finalized. > >> > >> Best, > >> Deborah > >> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > >> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > opinion and expression". [2] > >> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > subject to US jurisdiction. > >> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > >> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > >> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > >> > >> [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >> > >> [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >> > >> ENDS > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only > one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever > groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to > challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have > done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific > details to explain their stance. I believe all the language people > are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on > others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to > do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate > will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public > -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always > be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what > facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the > presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > >>> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>> Senior Policy Officer > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > consumers* > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >>> > >>> > >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >>> > >>> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > >>> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > >>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Deborah Brown > >> Policy Analyst > >> Access | AccessNow.org > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >> @deblebrown > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > @joana_varon > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH > /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k > l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W > bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 > rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR > G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= > =/bjR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 5 08:08:00 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:08:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire References: <047301ce6155$7196b660$54c42320$@ch> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Peter Major > Subject: FW: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire > Date: 4 June 2013 14:58:03 EDT > To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG > Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Participants, > > Please find attached the draft questionnaire we agreed on during our meeting > on 30-31 May 2013. I added as first question related to stakeholder group as > was suggested by the group. I kindly ask you to provide your comments on the > questionnaire related to format and editorial aspects, but not on > substantial points. In order to proceed the way we anticipated in our > meeting please send your comments until the 15 June 2013 to the mailing > list, the Secretariat and to me. > > During the meeting you also agreed that on practical aspects of > accreditation of observers and modalities of participation the Chair would > decide after consultation with the Secretariat. I seek your view and > suggestion on this issue as well as on handling responses to the > questionnaire. > > > Best regards, > > Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Questionnaire.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41215 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Jun 10 05:40:39 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:40:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> Dear all +1 from me. MF On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > I support this text by Joy... > > On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> >> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop >> of a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> Joy >> >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> Joana Varon wrote: >> > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> > And thanks for the comprehension. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi All >> > >> > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> > >> > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> > >> > Best, parminder >> > >> > >> > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out >> to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery >> (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >> >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >> organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, >> please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the Best >> Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a >> debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on >> Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come >> up with for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> get this finalized. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Deborah >> >> >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >> >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> case >> >> >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and >> non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America. >> Equally concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally >> dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are >> universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, >> and may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human >> rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International >> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles >> 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution >> 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline >> must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression >> ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of >> Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state >> surveillance of communications with serious implications for the >> exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and >> expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary >> and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications >> and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to >> freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >> >> >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >> Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very >> heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers >> storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital >> communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital >> age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to >> the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to >> foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >> >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary >> parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users >> globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would >> uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding >> Principles on Business and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and >> Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >> >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the >> Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act >> swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance >> system. One action the Council could take would be to follow up the >> Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the >> recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop >> a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of >> technological advancements >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >> >> >> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> >> >> ENDS >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only >> one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever >> groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to >> challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they >> have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with >> specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the language >> people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden >> on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more >> to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate >> will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society >> to always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on >> both what facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by >> the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an >> outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My >> main concern is whether we have enough time for significant >> participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from >> a global coalition. >> >>> >> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >>> Senior Policy Officer >> >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice >> for consumers* >> >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >>> >> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> . >> >>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Deborah Brown >> >> Policy Analyst >> >> Access | AccessNow.org >> >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> >> @deblebrown >> >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Joana Varon Ferraz >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> > @joana_varon >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH >> /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k >> l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W >> bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 >> rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR >> G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= >> =/bjR >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 10 05:46:21 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:46:21 +0100 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> Message-ID: + 1. Thanks, Joy! On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rikke Frank Joergensen wrote: > Super proposal by Joy/ APC, I support it !**** > > ** ** > > Rikke**** > > ** ** > > *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto: > irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of *Marianne > Franklin > *Sent:* 10. juni 2013 11:41 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on > PRISM, but the damage is already done**** > > ** ** > > Dear all > > +1 from me. > > MF**** > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote:**** > > I support this text by Joy...**** > > On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote:**** > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La Rue's > office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the recommended > action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged approach to the call > to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of > a global Internet based surveillance system by: > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a > new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological > advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report a) > formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on > survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet human > rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the > light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding > Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” > Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets**** > > remove company names. > > **** > > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > **** > > > > > **** > > > > > **** > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net**** > > >* > *** > > ** ** > > wrote: > > **** > > > > > **** > > > Hi All > > **** > > > > > **** > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some**** > > changes I would have liked to propose but due to the urgency**** > > of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of the** > ** > > companies involved should have not been mentioned in the**** > > statement. Can we still do it?.) > > **** > > > > > **** > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with**** > > him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a**** > > useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to**** > > him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is*** > * > > still there? > > **** > > > > > **** > > > Best, parminder > > **** > > > > > **** > > > > > **** > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > **** > > >> Dear all, > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to**** > > the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state**** > > surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. We** > ** > > are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be**** > > able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can**** > > still publish it and do outreach. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits**** > > be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post** > ** > > it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the**** > > meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable**** > > endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can**** > > add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a**** > > reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC*** > * > > that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though**** > > not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with*** > * > > for facilitating input and sign on. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the**** > > last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process** > ** > > because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and** > ** > > to working together to get this finalized. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Best, > > **** > > >> Deborah > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights**** > > Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights**** > > addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of**** > > ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions.**** > > This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over**** > > recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone**** > > communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of** > ** > > the United States of America. Equally concerning is the**** > > provision of access to the results of that surveillance to**** > > other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the**** > > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally*** > * > > dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach*** > * > > are universally distributed. These revelations raise the**** > > appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic**** > > disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and**** > > 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights** > ** > > (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal**** > > Declaration of Human Rights. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted**** > > Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that**** > > people have offline must also be protected online, in**** > > particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this**** > > session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression**** > > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state**** > > surveillance of communications with serious implications for**** > > the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of*** > * > > opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that**** > > inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile** > ** > > ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right**** > > to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten*** > * > > the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and**** > > expression". [2] > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by**** > > governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of**** > > expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is** > ** > > extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement** > ** > > are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent**** > > serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA**** > > case. Although the personal information disclosed under this**** > > programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign**** > > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in**** > > secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights*** > * > > of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into**** > > the very heart of the data streams of the globally central**** > > service providers storing and communicating the majority of**** > > the world's digital communications is a backward step for**** > > human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This**** > > raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial**** > > commission of human rights violations and the inability of**** > > individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign**** > > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign**** > > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is**** > > needed. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and**** > > involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental rights** > ** > > of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice.*** > * > > Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed**** > > United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human**** > > Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of**** > > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> We call for protection of those who have made**** > > these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be** > ** > > used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the**** > > legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We**** > > urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case** > ** > > and to support their efforts to combat violations of the**** > > fundamental human rights of all global citizens.**** > > Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency*** > * > > and upholding the human rights of all. > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights**** > > violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one**** > > foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of*** > * > > Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human**** > > Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global*** > * > > Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council**** > > could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening** > ** > > a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of**** > > Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new**** > > General Comment on the right to privacy in light of**** > > technological advancements > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> ENDS > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman**** > > > >**** > > ** ** > > wrote: > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. **** > > I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the**** > > framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it**** > > would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and**** > > companies to explain how what they have done does NOT**** > > constitute human rights violations, with specific details to*** > * > > explain their stance. I believe all the language people are**** > > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on*** > * > > others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has**** > > more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything**** > > else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will**** > > probably never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic** > ** > > advantage for civil society to always be calling for**** > > transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are** > ** > > presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the**** > > presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > > **** > > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm**** > > wrote: > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown**** > > > >**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > wrote: > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a**** > > statement to be released around this discussion, or later in**** > > the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had**** > > the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help**** > > start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have** > ** > > enough time for significant participation from a diversity of*** > * > > groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad**** > > to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net > **** > > 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad*** > * > > can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough,**** > > then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it**** > > earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> -- > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > **** > > >>> Senior Policy Officer > > **** > > >>> Consumers International | the global**** > > campaigning voice for consumers* > > **** > > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle**** > > East > > **** > > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji**** > > Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > **** > > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** > > > > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! |**** > > Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main**** > > | #wcrd2013 > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org**** > > > **** > > | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** > > > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > > .**** > > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> -- > > **** > > >>> You received this message because you are**** > > subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group"**** > > group. > > **** > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop**** > > receiving emails from it, send an email to > webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com**** > > > . > > **** > > >>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >>> > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> > > **** > > >> -- > > **** > > >> Deborah Brown > > **** > > >> Policy Analyst > > **** > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > **** > > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > > > **** > > >> @deblebrown > > **** > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > **** > > > > > **** > > > > > **** > > > > > **** > > > > > **** > > > -- > > **** > > > > > **** > > > -- > > **** > > > > > **** > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > **** > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > **** > > > @joana_varon > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH > /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k > l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W > bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 > rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR > G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= > =/bjR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > -- **** > > Dr Marianne Franklin**** > > Reader **** > > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program**** > > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)**** > > Goldsmiths, University of London**** > > Dept. of Media & Communications**** > > New Cross, London SE14 6NW**** > > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072**** > > **** > > @GloComm**** > > https://twitter.com/GloComm**** > > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/**** > > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/**** > > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org**** > > @netrights**** > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vikszabados at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 05:51:54 2013 From: vikszabados at gmail.com (Viktor Szabados) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:51:54 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> Message-ID: Hello thanks for work. +1 vik 2013/6/10, Joana Varon : > + 1. Thanks, Joy! > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rikke Frank Joergensen > > wrote: > >> Super proposal by Joy/ APC, I support it !**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Rikke**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto: >> irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Marianne >> Franklin >> *Sent:* 10. juni 2013 11:41 >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on >> PRISM, but the damage is already done**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear all >> >> +1 from me. >> >> MF**** >> >> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote:**** >> >> I support this text by Joy...**** >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote:**** >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> Rue's >> office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the recommended >> action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged approach to the call >> to action which is looking really good: >> >> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation >> of >> a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a >> new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological >> advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report >> a) >> formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on >> survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet >> human >> rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the >> light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding >> Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and >> Remedy” >> Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> Joy >> >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> Joana Varon wrote: >> > Sure, Parminder. Lets**** >> >> remove company names. >> >> **** >> >> > And thanks for the comprehension. >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net**** >> >> >> >* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> wrote: >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > Hi All >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some**** >> >> changes I would have liked to propose but due to the >> urgency**** >> >> of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of >> the** >> ** >> >> companies involved should have not been mentioned in the**** >> >> statement. Can we still do it?.) >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with**** >> >> him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be >> a**** >> >> useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to**** >> >> him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy >> is*** >> * >> >> still there? >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > Best, parminder >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> **** >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to**** >> >> the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state**** >> >> surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. >> We** >> ** >> >> are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might >> be**** >> >> able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can**** >> >> still publish it and do outreach. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits**** >> >> be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will >> post** >> ** >> >> it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the**** >> >> meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable**** >> >> endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we >> can**** >> >> add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a**** >> >> reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> HRC*** >> * >> >> that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though**** >> >> not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up >> with*** >> * >> >> for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the**** >> >> last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the >> process** >> ** >> >> because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input >> and** >> ** >> >> to working together to get this finalized. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Best, >> >> **** >> >> >> Deborah >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights**** >> >> Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights**** >> >> addressing the PRISM/NSA case >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of**** >> >> ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ >> regions.**** >> >> This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern >> over**** >> >> recent revelations of surveillance of internet and >> telephone**** >> >> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government >> of** >> ** >> >> the United States of America. Equally concerning is the**** >> >> provision of access to the results of that surveillance to**** >> >> other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the**** >> >> indication of the possible complicity of some of the >> globally*** >> * >> >> dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and >> reach*** >> * >> >> are universally distributed. These revelations raise the**** >> >> appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and >> systematic**** >> >> disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 >> and**** >> >> 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political >> Rights** >> ** >> >> (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal**** >> >> Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted**** >> >> Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that**** >> >> people have offline must also be protected online, in**** >> >> particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this**** >> >> session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression**** >> >> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state**** >> >> surveillance of communications with serious implications >> for**** >> >> the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom >> of*** >> * >> >> opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that**** >> >> inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a >> fertile** >> ** >> >> ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the >> right**** >> >> to privacy in communications and, consequently, also >> threaten*** >> * >> >> the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and**** >> >> expression". [2] >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by**** >> >> governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of**** >> >> expression and the Internet is important. But civil society >> is** >> ** >> >> extremely concerned that governments supporting this >> statement** >> ** >> >> are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent**** >> >> serious revelations about mass surveillance in the >> PRISM/NSA**** >> >> case. Although the personal information disclosed under >> this**** >> >> programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign**** >> >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in**** >> >> secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human >> rights*** >> * >> >> of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into**** >> >> the very heart of the data streams of the globally central**** >> >> service providers storing and communicating the majority of**** >> >> the world's digital communications is a backward step for**** >> >> human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This**** >> >> raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial**** >> >> commission of human rights violations and the inability of**** >> >> individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign**** >> >> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign**** >> >> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is**** >> >> needed. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and**** >> >> involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental >> rights** >> ** >> >> of their users globally to immediately suspend this >> practice.*** >> * >> >> Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed**** >> >> United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human**** >> >> Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of**** >> >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> We call for protection of those who have made**** >> >> these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not >> be** >> ** >> >> used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper >> the**** >> >> legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We**** >> >> urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this >> case** >> ** >> >> and to support their efforts to combat violations of the**** >> >> fundamental human rights of all global citizens.**** >> >> Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> transparency*** >> * >> >> and upholding the human rights of all. >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights**** >> >> violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one**** >> >> foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom >> of*** >> * >> >> Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human**** >> >> Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a >> global*** >> * >> >> Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council**** >> >> could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by >> convening** >> ** >> >> a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of**** >> >> Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new**** >> >> General Comment on the right to privacy in light of**** >> >> technological advancements >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> [1] >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> [2] >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> ENDS >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman**** >> >> > >> >**** >> >> ** ** >> >> wrote: >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. **** >> >> I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the**** >> >> framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it**** >> >> would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and**** >> >> companies to explain how what they have done does NOT**** >> >> constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> to*** >> * >> >> explain their stance. I believe all the language people >> are**** >> >> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden >> on*** >> * >> >> others to show how our concerns are not justified. This >> has**** >> >> more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything**** >> >> else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will**** >> >> probably never be made public -- but I think it is a >> strategic** >> ** >> >> advantage for civil society to always be calling for**** >> >> transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> are** >> ** >> >> presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the**** >> >> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> >> **** >> >> >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm**** >> >> wrote: >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown**** >> >> > >> >**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> wrote: >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a**** >> >> statement to be released around this discussion, or later in**** >> >> the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had**** >> >> the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help**** >> >> start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we >> have** >> ** >> >> enough time for significant participation from a diversity >> of*** >> * >> >> groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad**** >> >> to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net >> >> **** >> >> 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the >> pad*** >> * >> >> can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough,**** >> >> then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it**** >> >> earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> -- >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >> **** >> >> >>> Senior Policy Officer >> >> **** >> >> >>> Consumers International | the global**** >> >> campaigning voice for consumers* >> >> **** >> >> >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle**** >> >> East >> >> **** >> >> >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji**** >> >> Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> >> **** >> >> >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! |**** >> >> Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main**** >> >> | #wcrd2013 >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >> .**** >> >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> -- >> >> **** >> >> >>> You received this message because you are**** >> >> subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group"**** >> >> group. >> >> **** >> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop**** >> >> receiving emails from it, send an email to >> webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com**** >> >> >> >> . >> >> **** >> >> >>> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >>> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> -- >> >> **** >> >> >> Deborah Brown >> >> **** >> >> >> Policy Analyst >> >> **** >> >> >> Access | AccessNow.org >> >> **** >> >> >> E. deborah at accessnow.org**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> @deblebrown >> >> **** >> >> >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > -- >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > -- >> >> **** >> >> > >> >> **** >> >> > Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> **** >> >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> >> **** >> >> > @joana_varon >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH >> /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k >> l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W >> bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 >> rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR >> G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= >> =/bjR >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> -- **** >> >> Dr Marianne Franklin**** >> >> Reader **** >> >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program**** >> >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)**** >> >> Goldsmiths, University of London**** >> >> Dept. of Media & Communications**** >> >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW**** >> >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072**** >> >> **** >> >> @GloComm**** >> >> https://twitter.com/GloComm**** >> >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/**** >> >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/**** >> >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org**** >> >> @netrights**** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága http://internetrightsandprinciples.org tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport www.facebook.com/szoljbele alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum www.youthforum.org -- SZABADOS Viktor vikszabados at gmail.com +36 30 8535388 Budapest, HU From vikszabados at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 05:54:32 2013 From: vikszabados at gmail.com (Viktor Szabados) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:54:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] US Surveillance/PRISM leak and responses In-Reply-To: <51B58A19.3030601@gold.ac.uk> References: <51B57EBD.9050609@gold.ac.uk> <51B58A19.3030601@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Members, I am supporting for sure, also the further exploring how we, BB and IRP can unite for actions etc. thanks,your viktor IRP SC member BB list member 2013/6/10, Marianne Franklin : > Dear all > > Many of you are following the debate I am sure on the recent news on how > internet users around the world and their human rights online are > possibly affected by how the US Patriot Act can allow surveillance at a > global level. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html > > The Best Bits coalition is taking the lead in organizing a clear > response to the implications of this leaked information and I would urge > all IRP Coalition members, particularly those with legal expertise, to > get involved with the drafting, post haste. As the IRP Charter is > directly relevant to these recent events, indeed its whole purpose and > aim to provide a baseline for just these sorts of occurrences and > responses to them, this case is a timely even if a worrying one for > anyone in the coalition concerned about how law can be (mis)used to > serve ends that are detrimental to human rights. > > The news broke late last week so a lot has to happen quickly. I will > forward a couple of mails relevant to how the current mobilization is > unfolding. > > Do coalition members agree that we should lend our support to this > action? It will result no doubt in a statement and some interventions > from the floor so all the more reason to get involved and make a > contribution now. > > best > MF >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > > -- tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága http://internetrightsandprinciples.org tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport www.facebook.com/szoljbele alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum www.youthforum.org -- SZABADOS Viktor vikszabados at gmail.com +36 30 8535388 Budapest, HU From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 06:00:39 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:30:39 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5A307.9020707@itforchange.net> References: <51B5A307.9020707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B5A3C7.30408@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 June 2013 03:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > if we do so, I guess we should leave it open, mentioning as > examples... meaning that there might be other companies envolved there > werent listed yet Yes, we should say Microsoft, Yahoo, Google... (mention the whole list here from media reports), and probably others > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 02:54 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Sorry, there was mentions at a certain point... but its a bit >> unclear if we have the list of all the companies envolved.. so I >> would leave it general. > > I think we should have the list of companies mentioned..... The > list is there in all newspaper coverage, with not the least bit of > apology and even uncertainty... Naming and shaming is one basic > thing one dies on HR and such issues. And when the whole world > media carry these names prominently, for a CS group to be hesitant > doesnt sound too good to me... > > > > > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> very sorry >> >> Mis typed >> >> I mean to say the names of the companies should be mentioned... >> >> (they are not mentioned at present) >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:17 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some >>> changes I would have liked to propose but due to the >>> urgency of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly >>> the names of the companies involved should have not been >>> mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>> >>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him >>> but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a >>> useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email >>> to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder >>> if Joy is still there? >>> >>> Best, parminder >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the >>>> Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state >>>> surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is >>>> below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based >>>> orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>> >>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be >>>> sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will >>>> post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate >>>> endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or >>>> individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, >>>> please reply on this thread and we can add your name >>>> through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this >>>> statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that >>>> will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though >>>> not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come >>>> up with for facilitating input and sign on. >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 >>>> hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process >>>> because of time constraints. Looking forward to more >>>> input and to working together to get this finalized. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on >>>> the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights >>>> addressing the PRISM/NSA case >>>> >>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. >>>> This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern >>>> over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and >>>> telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by >>>> the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of >>>> that surveillance to other governments such as the >>>> United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible >>>> complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based >>>> Internet companies whose services and reach are >>>> universally distributed. These revelations raise the >>>> appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and >>>> systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in >>>> Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles >>>> 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted >>>> Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights >>>> that people have offline must also be protected online, >>>> in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during >>>> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of >>>> Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends >>>> in state surveillance of communications with serious >>>> implications for the exercise of the human rights to >>>> privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >>>> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground >>>> for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right >>>> to privacy in communications and, consequently, also >>>> threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>> >>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by >>>> governments in the cross regional statement on freedom >>>> of expression and the Internet is important. But civil >>>> society is extremely concerned that governments >>>> supporting this statement are not addressing, and in >>>> fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about >>>> mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the >>>> personal information disclosed under this programme is >>>> subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence >>>> Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret >>>> and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights >>>> of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >>>> >>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the >>>> very heart of the data streams of the globally central >>>> service providers storing and communicating the >>>> majority of the world's digital communications is a >>>> backward step for human rights in the digital age. As >>>> La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard >>>> to the extra-territorial commission of human rights >>>> violations and the inability of individuals to know >>>> that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, >>>> challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response >>>> is needed. >>>> >>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary >>>> parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of >>>> their users globally to immediately suspend this >>>> practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights >>>> Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on >>>> Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and >>>> Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> We call for protection of those who have made these >>>> violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not >>>> be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they >>>> hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by >>>> citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers >>>> involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of >>>> all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical >>>> role in promoting transparency and upholding the human >>>> rights of all. >>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights >>>> violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one >>>> foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on >>>> Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore >>>> call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based >>>> surveillance system. One action the Council could take >>>> would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a >>>> multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a >>>> new General Comment on the right to privacy in light >>>> of technological advancements >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>> >>>> ENDS >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have >>>> only one overarching issue to raise concerning the >>>> framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I >>>> believe it would be most powerful to challenge both >>>> the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they >>>> have done does NOT constitute human rights >>>> violations, with specific details to explain their >>>> stance. I believe all the language people are >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the >>>> burden on others to show how our concerns are not >>>> justified. This has more to do with long-term >>>> diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate >>>> will continue and many of the facts will probably >>>> never be made public -- but I think it is a >>>> strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions >>>> on both what facts are presented, and what concerns >>>> are not addressed by the presentation of convincing >>>> arguments/facts. >>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement >>>>>> to be released around this discussion, or later >>>>>> in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, >>>>>> have you had the chance to work on an outline? If >>>>>> not, I'm happy to help start the drafting >>>>>> process. My main concern is whether we have >>>>>> enough time for significant participation from a >>>>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a >>>>>> global coalition. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a >>>>> sign-on statement on bestbits.net >>>>> 5 hours before the hearing? >>>>> Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse >>>>> it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then >>>>> I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it >>>>> earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning >>>>> voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, >>>>> 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer >>>>> Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>> | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>> . >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are >>>>> subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want >>>>> working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>> webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 10 06:03:06 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:33:06 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5A3C7.30408@itforchange.net> References: <51B5A307.9020707@itforchange.net> <51B5A3C7.30408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Agreed that that's a good solution. Anja On 10 June 2013 15:30, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 03:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > if we do so, I guess we should leave it open, mentioning as examples... > meaning that there might be other companies envolved there werent listed yet > > > Yes, we should say Microsoft, Yahoo, Google... (mention the whole list > here from media reports), and probably others > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:54 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Sorry, there was mentions at a certain point... but its a bit unclear if >> we have the list of all the companies envolved.. so I would leave it >> general. >> >> >> I think we should have the list of companies mentioned..... The list is >> there in all newspaper coverage, with not the least bit of apology and even >> uncertainty... Naming and shaming is one basic thing one dies on HR and >> such issues. And when the whole world media carry these names prominently, >> for a CS group to be hesitant doesnt sound too good to me... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> very sorry >>> >>> Mis typed >>> >>> I mean to say the names of the companies should be mentioned... >>> >>> (they are not mentioned at present) >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:17 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would >>>> have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it >>>> now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been >>>> mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>> >>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not >>>> Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on >>>> this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. >>>> Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights >>>> Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The >>>> draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based >>>> orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we >>>> can still publish it and do outreach. >>>> >>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this >>>> thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to >>>> facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals >>>> feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we >>>> can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this >>>> statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at >>>> 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame >>>> we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and >>>> apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. >>>> Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>> >>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of >>>> State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >>>> >>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations >>>> from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We >>>> express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet >>>> and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government >>>> of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of >>>> access to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the >>>> United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of >>>> the globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach >>>> are universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and >>>> may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil >>>> and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which >>>> "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be >>>> protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during >>>> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported >>>> (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications >>>> with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy >>>> and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that >>>> inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for >>>> arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in >>>> communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right >>>> to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >>>> >>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the >>>> cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is >>>> important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments >>>> supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the >>>> recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. >>>> Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject >>>> to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), >>>> that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human >>>> rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >>>> >>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of >>>> the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and >>>> communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a >>>> backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This >>>> raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of >>>> human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they >>>> might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect >>>> to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>> >>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to >>>> the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and >>>> Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers >>>> ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by >>>> citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this >>>> case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental >>>> human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in >>>> promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>> >>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically >>>> relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert >>>> Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the >>>> Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global >>>> Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would >>>> be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to >>>> support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >>>> develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>> >>>> ENDS >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide >>>>> to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US >>>>> Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute >>>>> human rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I >>>>> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, >>>>> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >>>>> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; >>>>> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made >>>>> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to >>>>> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >>>>> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >>>>> presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released >>>>> around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. >>>>> Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to >>>>> help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough >>>>> time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this >>>>> is coming from a global coalition. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on >>>>> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on >>>>> the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then >>>>> I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be >>>>> in the air until then. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 10 06:04:52 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:34:52 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU In-Reply-To: References: <1E0CCC35-959A-4D1F-ADD5-5F7B41A976CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The Internet Democracy Project has now endorsed this on the Best Bits site as well. With apologies for getting to this late. Best, Anja On 10 June 2013 07:55, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Tomorrow starts the ITU Council, to which we should address our statement > for opening the participation at WCG-Internet. > This is just a reminder, if you haven't considered to sign it on yet, > please, do so: > > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ > > (ps. Sorry for the insistence. But now we have two important statements in > the pipeline to be delivered this week and we shall not let > recent catastrophic - though not unimaginable - news undermine previous > efforts on other inter-related topics.) > > Kind regards > > Joana > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Thanks, Jeremy. >> >> I'm adding in the website the names of the ones that have already >> endorsed the statement, so they just have to confirm their email address >> once they receive an email from the platform. >> >> For the ones who haven't yet, please, consider to endorse: >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/ >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 07/06/2013, at 7:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we >>> shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it >>> open for endorsements at the platform. >>> >>> So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through >>> this list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits >>> platform for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help >>> us to upload the text? >>> >>> >>> It's now at http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/. If you endorsed by >>> email, please do so on the site too. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 06:09:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:09:51 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <55AFE053CC2759429C4001A6DD63E7855CCFFFB8@EXCHDB01.dupa.dk> Message-ID: <20130610120951.13dfd29b@quill.bollow.ch> +1 Greetings, Norbert Am Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:43:33 +0000 schrieb Rikke Frank Joergensen : > Super proposal by Joy/ APC, I support it ! > > Rikke > > From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf > Of Marianne Franklin Sent: 10. juni 2013 11:41 To: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] > [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is > already done > > Dear all > > +1 from me. > > MF > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > I support this text by Joy... > On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: 1) > convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop > of a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets > remove company names. > > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some > changes I would have liked to propose but due to the urgency > of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of > the companies involved should have not been mentioned in the > statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with > him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a > useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to > him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy > is still there? > > > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to > the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state > surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. > We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be > able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can > still publish it and do outreach. > > >> > > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits > be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will > post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the > meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable > endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can > add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a > reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though > not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up > with for facilitating input and sign on. > > >> > > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the > last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the > process because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and > to working together to get this finalized. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > >> > > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights > Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights > addressing the PRISM/NSA case > > >> > > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of > ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. > This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over > recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone > communications of US and non-US nationals by the government > of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the > provision of access to the results of that surveillance to > other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > indication of the possible complicity of some of the > globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach > are universally distributed. These revelations raise the > appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic > disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and > 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political > Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. > > >> > > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted > Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that > people have offline must also be protected online, in > particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this > session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state > surveillance of communications with serious implications for > the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom > of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that > inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a > fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right > to privacy in communications and, consequently, also > threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression". [2] > > >> > > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by > governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of > expression and the Internet is important. But civil society > is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement > are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent > serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA > case. Although the personal information disclosed under this > programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in > secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human > rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. > > >> > > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into > the very heart of the data streams of the globally central > service providers storing and communicating the majority of > the world's digital communications is a backward step for > human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This > raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial > commission of human rights violations and the inability of > individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is > needed. > > >> > > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and > involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental > rights of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice. > Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed > United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > >> > > >> We call for protection of those who have made > these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not > be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the > legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We > urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this > case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the > fundamental human rights of all global citizens. > Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > >> > > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights > violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one > foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom > of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human > Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a > global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council > could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by > convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of > Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new > General Comment on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements > > >> > > >> [1] > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > >> > > >> [2] > >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > >> > > >> ENDS > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. > I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the > framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it > would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and > companies to explain how what they have done does NOT > constitute human rights violations, with specific details > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden > on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has > more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything > else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will > probably never be made public -- but I think it is a > strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for > transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the > presentation of convincing arguments/facts. > > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a > statement to be released around this discussion, or later in > the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had > the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help > start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we > have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of > groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > >>> > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad > to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net > 5 hours before the > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > >>> Senior Policy Officer > > >>> Consumers International | the global > campaigning voice for consumers* > > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle > East > > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji > Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | > Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main > | #wcrd2013 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> @Consumers_Int | > >>> www.consumersinternational.org > > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > >>> > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > >>> . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> You received this message because you are > subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" > group. > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > > >>> For more options, visit > >>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Deborah Brown > > >> Policy Analyst > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > >> E. > >> deborah at accessnow.org > > > >> @deblebrown > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > @joana_varon > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH > /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k > l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W > bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 > rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR > G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= > =/bjR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > -- > > Dr Marianne Franklin > > Reader > > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > > Goldsmiths, University of London > > Dept. of Media & Communications > > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > > > @GloComm > > https://twitter.com/GloComm > > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > @netrights From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 10 06:19:06 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:19:06 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Dear all Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. Best Anriette On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all > > +1 from me. > > MF > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> I support this text by Joy... >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>> > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > Joy > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > Joana Varon wrote: > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > Hi All > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > Best, parminder > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > >> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > facilitating input and sign on. > >> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > get this finalized. > >> > >> Best, > >> Deborah > >> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > >> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case > >> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > opinion and expression". [2] > >> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > subject to US jurisdiction. > >> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > >> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > >> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > >> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > >> > >> [1] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > >> > >> [2] > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > >> > >> ENDS > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > of convincing arguments/facts. > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > >>> -- > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >>> Senior Policy Officer > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > consumers* > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > > > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > >>> For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Deborah Brown > >> Policy Analyst > >> Access | AccessNow.org > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > >> @deblebrown > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > @joana_varon > >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 8350 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 55221 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 43578 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 06:21:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:21:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> Message-ID: <068e01ce65c4$5a967bd0$0fc37370$@gmail.com> +1 excellent. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of joy Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:26 AM To: Joana Varon Cc: parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; Philippe Dam Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged approach to the call to action which is looking really good: "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. Joy On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., Joana Varon wrote: > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi All > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > Best, parminder > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >> >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >> >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> >> [1] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf? OpenElement >> >> [2] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A .HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> >> ENDS >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: >> >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: >>> >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>> >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH /k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0 rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs= =/bjR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jun 5 10:43:38 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 10:43:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance Message-ID: Thought this might be of interest to the list. http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti , Internet , WTPF-13 [image: wtpf-13-blog] The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet Governance. Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of governments in existing international Internet Governance fora. In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14) . Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. * [image: cavalcanti]By Daniel B. Cavalcanti* *Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues.* -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sana at bolobhi.org Mon Jun 10 06:26:34 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:26:34 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette and all, for your work on this, Best, Sana On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > > Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > > Dear all > > > > +1 from me. > > > > MF > > > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >> I support this text by Joy... > >> > >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>> > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > > > Joy > > > > > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > > Joana Varon wrote: > > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All > > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > >> > > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > > facilitating input and sign on. > > >> > > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > > get this finalized. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > >> > > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA > case > > >> > > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > >> > > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > > opinion and expression". [2] > > >> > > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > > subject to US jurisdiction. > > >> > > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > >> > > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > >> > > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > >> > > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > >> > > >> [1] > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > >> > > >> [2] > > > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > >> > > >> ENDS > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > > of convincing arguments/facts. > > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > > wrote: > > > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > >>> Senior Policy Officer > > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > > consumers* > > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > > > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > > | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > > print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>> For more options, visit > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Deborah Brown > > >> Policy Analyst > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > > >> @deblebrown > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -- > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > @joana_varon > > > >>> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jun 10 06:30:00 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:30:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette and all, Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of time. This was amazing! Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ Please, let's spread it! best joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. > > Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read > later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included > signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: > > Dear all > > > > +1 from me. > > > > MF > > > > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: > >> I support this text by Joy... > >> > >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: > >>> > > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La > > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the > > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged > > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: > > > > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent > > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the > > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of > > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to > > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and > > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they > > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the > > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council > > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human > > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > > > Joy > > > > > > > > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., > > Joana Varon wrote: > > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. > > > And thanks for the comprehension. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All > > > > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I > > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i > > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved > > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) > > > > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if > > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to > > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR > > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? > > > > > Best, parminder > > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human > > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human > > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to > > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks > > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. > > >> > > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on > > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best > > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations > > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on > > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system > > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the > > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not > > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for > > facilitating input and sign on. > > >> > > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours > > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time > > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to > > get this finalized. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Deborah > > >> > > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ > > >> > > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the > > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA > case > > >> > > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ > > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly > > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of > > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US > > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally > > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that > > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the > > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant > > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally > > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even > > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as > > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of > > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > >> > > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, > > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also > > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But > > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of > > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The > > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal > > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful > > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, > > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of > > opinion and expression". [2] > > >> > > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in > > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet > > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that > > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact > > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance > > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed > > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign > > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and > > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not > > subject to US jurisdiction. > > >> > > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart > > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing > > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications > > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue > > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. > > >> > > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties > > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to > > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human > > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of > > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > > >> > > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations > > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target > > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of > > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those > > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to > > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global > > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting > > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. > > >> > > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation > > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the > > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. > > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to > > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One > > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel > > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation > > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General > > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements > > >> > > >> [1] > > > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement > > >> > > >> [2] > > > http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf > > >> > > >> ENDS > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one > > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups > > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge > > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done > > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details > > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are > > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others > > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with > > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will > > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- > > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be > > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts > > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation > > of convincing arguments/facts. > > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown > > > wrote: > > > > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be > > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which > > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? > > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern > > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a > > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. > > > > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on > > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the > > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. > > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone > > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > >>> Senior Policy Officer > > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > > consumers* > > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection > > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > > > > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > > | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice > > . Don't > > print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to > > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > > . > > >>> For more options, visit > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Deborah Brown > > >> Policy Analyst > > >> Access | AccessNow.org > > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org > > >> @deblebrown > > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -- > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > > > @joana_varon > > > >>> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Jun 10 06:36:00 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:36:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Joana! Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a confirmation email and click the link. Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours across many time zones. Best, Deborah On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Anriette and all, > > Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of > time. This was amazing! > Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > Please, let's spread it! > best > joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >> >> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >> names. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> > Dear all >> > >> > +1 from me. >> > >> > MF >> > >> > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >> >> I support this text by Joy... >> >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >> >>> >> > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >> > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >> > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >> > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >> > >> > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >> > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >> > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >> > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >> > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >> > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >> > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >> > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >> > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >> > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> > >> > Joy >> > >> > >> > >> > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >> > Joana Varon wrote: >> > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >> > > And thanks for the comprehension. >> > >> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi All >> > >> > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >> > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >> > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >> > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >> > >> > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >> > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >> > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >> > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >> > >> > > Best, parminder >> > >> > >> > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > >> Dear all, >> > >> >> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >> > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >> > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >> > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >> > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >> > >> >> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >> > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >> > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >> > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >> > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >> > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >> > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >> > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >> > facilitating input and sign on. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >> > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >> > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >> > get this finalized. >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> Deborah >> > >> >> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >> > >> >> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >> > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >> case >> > >> >> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >> > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >> > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >> > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >> > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >> > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >> > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >> > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >> > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >> > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >> > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >> > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >> > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> > >> >> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >> > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >> > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >> > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >> > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >> > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >> > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >> > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >> > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >> > opinion and expression". [2] >> > >> >> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >> > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >> > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >> > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >> > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >> > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >> > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >> > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >> > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >> > subject to US jurisdiction. >> > >> >> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >> > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >> > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >> > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >> > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >> > >> >> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >> > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >> > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >> > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >> > A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> > >> >> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >> > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >> > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >> > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >> > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >> > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >> > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >> > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >> > >> >> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >> > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >> > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >> > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >> > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >> > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >> > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >> > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >> > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >> > >> >> > >> [2] >> > >> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >> > >> >> > >> ENDS >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >> > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >> > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >> > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >> > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >> > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >> > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >> > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >> > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >> > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >> > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >> > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >> > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >> > of convincing arguments/facts. >> > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >> > > wrote: >> > >> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >> > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >> > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >> > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >> > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >> > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >> > >> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >> > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >> > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >> > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >> > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >> > >> > >>> -- >> > >> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> > >>> Senior Policy Officer >> > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> > consumers* >> > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> > >> > >> > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >> > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> > >> > >> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> > | >> > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> > >> > >> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >> > . Don't >> > print this email unless necessary. >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -- >> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >> > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> > . >> > >>> For more options, visit >> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Deborah Brown >> > >> Policy Analyst >> > >> Access | AccessNow.org >> > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> > >> @deblebrown >> > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > Joana Varon Ferraz >> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> > > @joana_varon >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > -- > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jun 10 06:40:44 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:10:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: Many thanks from my side as well to all of you for for making this happen. I think the final version of the statement is excellent! Warmly, Anja On 10 June 2013 16:06, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours > across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period >> of time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>> > Dear all >>> > >>> > +1 from me. >>> > >>> > MF >>> > >>> > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>> >> I support this text by Joy... >>> >> >>> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>> >>> >>> > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>> > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>> > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>> > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>> > >>> > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>> > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>> > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>> > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>> > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>> > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>> > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>> > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>> > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>> > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>> > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>> > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> > >>> > Joy >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>> > Joana Varon wrote: >>> > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>> > > And thanks for the comprehension. >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi All >>> > >>> > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>> > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>> > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>> > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>> > >>> > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>> > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>> > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>> > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>> > >>> > > Best, parminder >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> > >> Dear all, >>> > >> >>> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>> > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>> > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>> > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>> > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>> > >> >>> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>> > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>> > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>> > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>> > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>> > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>> > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>> > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>> > facilitating input and sign on. >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>> > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>> > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>> > get this finalized. >>> > >> >>> > >> Best, >>> > >> Deborah >>> > >> >>> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>> > >> >>> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>> > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>> case >>> > >> >>> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>> > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>> > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>> > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>> > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>> > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>> > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>> > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>> > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>> > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>> > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>> > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>> > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>> > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> > >> >>> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>> > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>> > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>> > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>> > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>> > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>> > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>> > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>> > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>> > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>> > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>> > opinion and expression". [2] >>> > >> >>> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>> > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>> > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>> > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>> > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>> > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>> > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>> > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>> > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>> > subject to US jurisdiction. >>> > >> >>> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>> > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>> > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>> > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>> > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>> > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>> > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>> > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>> > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>> > >> >>> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>> > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>> > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>> > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>> > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>> > A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>> > >> >>> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>> > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>> > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>> > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>> > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>> > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>> > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>> > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>> > >> >>> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>> > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>> > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>> > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>> > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>> > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>> > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>> > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>> > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>> > >> >>> > >> [1] >>> > >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>> > >> >>> > >> [2] >>> > >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>> > >> >>> > >> ENDS >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>> > > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>> > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>> > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>> > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>> > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>> > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>> > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>> > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>> > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>> > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>> > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>> > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>> > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>> > of convincing arguments/facts. >>> > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>> > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>> > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>> > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>> > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>> > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>> > >>> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>> > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>> > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>> > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>> > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>> > >>> > >>> -- >>> > >>> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> > >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>> > consumers* >>> > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>> > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>> > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>> > | >>> > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>> > . Don't >>> > print this email unless necessary. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- >>> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>> > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>> > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>> > . >>> > >>> For more options, visit >>> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> Deborah Brown >>> > >> Policy Analyst >>> > >> Access | AccessNow.org >>> > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>> > >> @deblebrown >>> > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > -- >>> > >>> > > -- >>> > >>> > > Joana Varon Ferraz >>> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> > > @joana_varon >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vikszabados at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 06:55:30 2013 From: vikszabados at gmail.com (Viktor Szabados) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:55:30 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: Hello thanks a lot! IRP and BB will be not mentioned in supporters´ list? thanks,your vik 2013/6/10, Anja Kovacs : > Many thanks from my side as well to all of you for for making this happen. > I think the final version of the statement is excellent! > > Warmly, > Anja > > > On 10 June 2013 16:06, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Thanks Joana! >> Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >> APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make >> interventions >> and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We >> have >> asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for >> the >> current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session >> 1500 >> Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement >> on >> behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >> the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> >> I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >> confirmation email and click the link. >> >> Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >> >> Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 >> hours >> across many time zones. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Anriette and all, >>> >>> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period >>> of time. This was amazing! >>> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> Please, let's spread it! >>> best >>> joana >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>>> >>>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>>> names. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> > Dear all >>>> > >>>> > +1 from me. >>>> > >>>> > MF >>>> > >>>> > On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>> >> I support this text by Joy... >>>> >> >>>> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> > Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>> > Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> > recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> > approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> > >>>> > "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> > 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>> > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop >>>> > of >>>> > a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>> > technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>> > prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>> > laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>> > willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>> > implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>> > endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>> > Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> > A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> > >>>> > Joy >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> > Joana Varon wrote: >>>> > > Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>> > > And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Hi All >>>> > >>>> > > IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> > would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> > would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> > should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do >>>> > it?.) >>>> > >>>> > > I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>> > not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> > talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>> > Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> > >>>> > > Best, parminder >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>> > >> Dear all, >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> > Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> > rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out >>>> > to >>>> > Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> > Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> > this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> > Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >>>> > organizations >>>> > or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>> > this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>> > later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>> > HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>> > ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>> > facilitating input and sign on. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> > and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> > constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>> > get this finalized. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Best, >>>> > >> Deborah >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> > impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>>> case >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> > organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>> > global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>> > surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and >>>> > non-US >>>> > nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> > concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>> > surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>> > indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally >>>> > dominant >>>> > US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>> > distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>> > suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>> > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution >>>> > >> 20/8, >>>> > which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must >>>> > also >>>> > be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>> > during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>> > reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>> > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the >>>> > human >>>> > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> > Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>> > frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>> > infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>> > consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> > opinion and expression". [2] >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> > the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >>>> > Internet >>>> > is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>> > governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>> > are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>> > in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>> > under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>> > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>> > has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>> > subject to US jurisdiction. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very >>>> > >> heart >>>> > of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>> > and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>> > is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>> > notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to >>>> > foreign >>>> > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> > surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary >>>> > >> parties >>>> > to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> > immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>> > and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> > A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> > public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> > whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>> > government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> > whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> > combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> > citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> > transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> > specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> > Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the >>>> > Internet. >>>> > We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> > prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>> > action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>> > by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> > of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>> > Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological >>>> > advancements >>>> > >> >>>> > >> [1] >>>> > >>>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>> > >> >>>> > >> [2] >>>> > >>>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>> > >> >>>> > >> ENDS >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only >>>> > >> one >>>> > overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>> > decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>> > both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>> > does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>> > to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>> > suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>> > to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>> > long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>> > continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>> > but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always >>>> > be >>>> > calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what >>>> > facts >>>> > are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the >>>> > presentation >>>> > of convincing arguments/facts. >>>> > >> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> > released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> > ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an >>>> > outline? >>>> > If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>> > is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> > diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> > >>>> > >>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> > statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> > hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> > If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> > else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- >>>> > >>>> > >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> > >>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> > >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice >>>> > >>> for >>>> > consumers* >>>> > >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> > >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> > >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> > Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> > | >>>> > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> > . Don't >>>> > print this email unless necessary. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- >>>> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> > the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> > from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> > . >>>> > >>> For more options, visit >>>> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> -- >>>> > >> Deborah Brown >>>> > >> Policy Analyst >>>> > >> Access | AccessNow.org >>>> > >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>> > >> @deblebrown >>>> > >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > -- >>>> > >>>> > > -- >>>> > >>>> > > Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>> > > @joana_varon >>>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága http://internetrightsandprinciples.org tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport www.facebook.com/szoljbele alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum www.youthforum.org -- SZABADOS Viktor vikszabados at gmail.com +36 30 8535388 Budapest, HU From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 10 06:56:03 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:56:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> Dear all Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it is within the 2 minutes space we have. Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the > current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a > confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours > across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of >> time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>> names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> Joy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>> get this finalized. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>> case >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>> [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>> [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>> ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>> consumers* >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . Don't >>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>> @joana_varon >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FOR THERESE_Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 56151 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 06:57:27 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 05:57:27 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] US Surveillance/PRISM leak and responses In-Reply-To: References: <51B57EBD.9050609@gold.ac.uk> <51B58A19.3030601@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: I agree as well. Thanks. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 10 June 2013 05:28, Brown, Abbe wrote: > I support and also re statements re companies > > Abbe > On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:54, Viktor Szabados wrote: > > > Dear Members, > > > > I am supporting for sure, also the further exploring how we, BB and > > IRP can unite for actions etc. > > > > thanks,your > > viktor > > IRP SC member > > BB list member > > > > 2013/6/10, Marianne Franklin : > >> Dear all > >> > >> Many of you are following the debate I am sure on the recent news on how > >> internet users around the world and their human rights online are > >> possibly affected by how the US Patriot Act can allow surveillance at a > >> global level. > >> > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html > >> > >> The Best Bits coalition is taking the lead in organizing a clear > >> response to the implications of this leaked information and I would urge > >> all IRP Coalition members, particularly those with legal expertise, to > >> get involved with the drafting, post haste. As the IRP Charter is > >> directly relevant to these recent events, indeed its whole purpose and > >> aim to provide a baseline for just these sorts of occurrences and > >> responses to them, this case is a timely even if a worrying one for > >> anyone in the coalition concerned about how law can be (mis)used to > >> serve ends that are detrimental to human rights. > >> > >> The news broke late last week so a lot has to happen quickly. I will > >> forward a couple of mails relevant to how the current mobilization is > >> unfolding. > >> > >> Do coalition members agree that we should lend our support to this > >> action? It will result no doubt in a statement and some interventions > >> from the floor so all the more reason to get involved and make a > >> contribution now. > >> > >> best > >> MF > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> IRP mailing list > >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >> > >> -- > >> Dr Marianne Franklin > >> Reader > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > >> Goldsmiths, University of London > >> Dept. of Media & Communications > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > >> > >> @GloComm > >> https://twitter.com/GloComm > >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> @netrights > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága > > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org > > tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum > > elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport > > www.facebook.com/szoljbele > > alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu > > alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu > > egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum > > www.youthforum.org > > -- > > SZABADOS Viktor > > vikszabados at gmail.com > > +36 30 8535388 > > Budapest, HU > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No > SC013683. > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 10 07:12:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:12:13 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: On 10/06/2013, at 6:55 PM, Viktor Szabados wrote: > Hello > > thanks a lot! > > IRP and BB will be not mentioned in supporters´ list? In general Best Bits does not endorse things as an entity, it just provides a forum for participants to endorse. In rare cases, like last year's meeting in Baku, we may form an apparently full consensus, and then attach the Best BIts name to the statement. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 10 07:13:21 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:13:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B5B4D1.50508@apc.org> Thanks Anja.. and thanks for your edits..we accepted except for the bit that was redundant as we had deleted the paragraph. Now we just need to send good vibes to Therese the intern from Human Rights Watch who will read this for us and take her and Philippe out to dinner when we are back in Geneva! This is not the first time that APC has needed support from the Geneva-based human rights groups and every time we do their response is fantastic! Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:40, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Many thanks from my side as well to all of you for for making this happen. > I think the final version of the statement is excellent! > > Warmly, > Anja > > > On 10 June 2013 16:06, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Thanks Joana! >> Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of >> APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions >> and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have >> asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the >> current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 >> Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on >> behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse >> the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >> >> I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a >> confirmation email and click the link. >> >> Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? >> >> Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours >> across many time zones. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear Anriette and all, >>> >>> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period >>> of time. This was amazing! >>> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ >>> Please, let's spread it! >>> best >>> joana >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>> @joana_varon >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>>> >>>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read >>>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included >>>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further >>>> names. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> +1 from me. >>>>> >>>>> MF >>>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La >>>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>>> >>>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the >>>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of >>>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >>>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to >>>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on practices and >>>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective steps will they >>>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b) examing the >>>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council >>>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human >>>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>> >>>>> Joy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All >>>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.) >>>>> >>>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if >>>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR >>>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>>> >>>>>> Best, parminder >>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to >>>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks >>>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations >>>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on >>>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best Bits system >>>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a debate at the >>>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not >>>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up with for >>>>> facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together to >>>>> get this finalized. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Deborah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA >>>> case >>>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly >>>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent revelations of >>>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US >>>>> nationals by the government of the United States of America. Equally >>>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of that >>>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United Kingdom, and the >>>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the globally dominant >>>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are universally >>>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even >>>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as >>>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of >>>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, >>>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also >>>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But >>>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >>>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of >>>>> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The >>>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal >>>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful >>>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, >>>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of >>>>> opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet >>>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that >>>>> governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and in fact >>>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass surveillance >>>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal information disclosed >>>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign >>>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and >>>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not >>>>> subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart >>>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers storing >>>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital communications >>>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue >>>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >>>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties >>>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to >>>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human >>>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >>>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of >>>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these violations >>>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of >>>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to >>>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. One >>>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert Panel >>>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the recommendation >>>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General >>>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements >>>>>>> [1] >>>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>>> [2] >>>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>>> ENDS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one >>>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups >>>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to challenge >>>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they have done >>>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with specific details >>>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language people are >>>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the burden on others >>>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has more to do with >>>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the debate will >>>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be made public -- >>>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to always be >>>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what facts >>>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the presentation >>>>> of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main concern >>>>> is whether we have enough time for significant participation from a >>>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >>>>> consumers* >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>> | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>>> . Don't >>>>> print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 07:22:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:22:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> References: <54F52722-BFE0-4932-A544-08B2C932DD6C@gmail.com> <51B5906D.1000109@itforchange.net> <51B59BAB.9060406@apc.org> <51B59E4D.4020605@itforchange.net> <51B59F17.7000304@gold.ac.uk> <51B5A81A.3@apc.org> <51B5B0C3.4050708@apc.org> Message-ID: <06f801ce65cc$c827ac20$58770460$@gmail.com> Excellent editing process... Well done. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:56 AM To: Deborah Brown Cc: Joana Varon; Marianne Franklin; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Dear all Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it is within the 2 minutes space we have. Anriette On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks Joana! > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf > of APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make > interventions and have graciously facilitated and contributed this > intervention. We have asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the > the Best Bits link for the current list of signatories before reading > it at the afternoon session 1500 Geneva time, so she will be able to > say that she is making the statement on behalf of xx orgs from around > the world. So please make sure you endorse the statement at > http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for > a confirmation email and click the link. > > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance? > > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 > hours across many time zones. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear Anriette and all, >> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short >> period of time. This was amazing! >> Here is the link for the next endorsements: >> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ Please, let's spread it! >> best >> joana >> >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) >> @joana_varon >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all. >>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and >>> read later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have >>> included signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate >>> adding further names. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote: >>>>> I support this text by Joy... >>>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote: >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank >>>> La Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good: >>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting >>>> the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >>>> develop of a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in >>>> light of technological advancements and 3) requesting the High >>>> Commissioner to prepare a report a) formally asking states to >>>> report on practices and laws in place on survellilance and what >>>> corrective steps will they willl take to meet human rights >>>> standards and b) examing the implications of this case in in the >>>> light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding >>>> Principles on Business and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>> >>>> Joy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m., >>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names. >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension. >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do >>>> it?.) >>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but >>>>> if >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the >>>> HR Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there? >>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out >>>> to Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with delivery >>>> (thanks >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach. >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if >>>> organizations or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft, >>>> please reply on this thread and we can add your name through the >>>> Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this statement would be part >>>> of a debate at the HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on >>>> Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame we could >>>> come up with for facilitating input and sign on. >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to working together >>>> to get this finalized. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the >>>> PRISM/NSA >>> case >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a >>>> truly global issue. We express strong concern over recent >>>> revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone >>>> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the >>>> United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of >>>> access to the results of that surveillance to other governments >>>> such as the United Kingdom, and the indication of the possible >>>> complicity of some of the globally dominant US-based Internet >>>> companies whose services and reach are universally distributed. >>>> These revelations raise the appearance of, and may even suggest a >>>> blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in >>>> Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and >>>> Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution >>>>>> 20/8, >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must >>>> also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression >>>> ..."[1] But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom >>>> of Expression reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state >>>> surveillance of communications with serious implications for the >>>> exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion >>>> and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >>>> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for >>>> arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in >>>> communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of >>>> the right to freedom of opinion and expression". [2] >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression and the >>>> Internet is important. But civil society is extremely concerned >>>> that governments supporting this statement are not addressing, and >>>> in fact are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass >>>> surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal >>>> information disclosed under this programme is subject to the >>>> oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), >>>> that court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the >>>> human rights of those not subject to US jurisdiction. >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very >>>>>> heart >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service providers >>>> storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital >>>> communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital >>>> age. As La Rue >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to >>>> foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed. >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary >>>>>> parties >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally >>>> to immediately suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the >>>> Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on >>>> Business and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" >>>> Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these >>>>>> violations >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight >>>> of government action by citizens." We urge States protect those >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts >>>> to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all. >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based surveillance system. >>>> One action the Council could take would be to follow up the Expert >>>> Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to support the >>>> recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee >>>> develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of >>>> technological advancements >>>>>> [1] >>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215 >>> 325.pdf?OpenElement >>>>>> [2] >>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Ses >>> sion23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf >>>>>> ENDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only >>>>>> one >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever >>>> groups decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful to >>>> challenge both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they >>>> have done does NOT constitute human rights violations, with >>>> specific details to explain their stance. I believe all the >>>> language people are suggesting can fit within this framing, and put >>>> the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified. >>>> This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything >>>> else; the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably >>>> never be made public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for >>>> civil society to always be calling for transparency and basing its >>>> conclusions on both what facts are presented, and what concerns are >>>> not addressed by the presentation of convincing arguments/facts. >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work on an outline? >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process. My main >>>> concern is whether we have enough time for significant >>>> participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming from a global coalition. >>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on >>>> statement on bestbits.net 5 hours before the >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can pre-endorse it there. >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to instruct someone >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the air until then. >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice >>>>>>> for >>>> consumers* >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>> | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>>> . >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>> from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>>>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, >>> melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf >>> o/irp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692