[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
Kevin Bankston
kbankston at cdt.org
Wed Jun 12 11:58:48 EDT 2013
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.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 <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)
>> @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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130612/2d1b3849/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list