[bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jun 11 05:25:59 EDT 2013
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
>> <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130611/c468f769/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list