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

Wed Jun 12 12:12:03 EDT 2013

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)<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130612/0594f086/attachment.htm>