[bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
Tapani Tarvainen
tapani.tarvainen at effi.org
Mon Jun 10 15:11:47 EDT 2013
+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 <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto: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
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> 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
> <deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>> 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 <http://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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> >> @deblebrown
> >> PGP 0x5EB4727D
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joana Varon Ferraz
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> > @joana_varon
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list