[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement

Wed Jun 12 11:59:28 EDT 2013

+ 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)<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130612/6ef5c9f5/attachment.htm>