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

Wed Jun 12 13:06:28 EDT 2013

I agree with Joana and Anriette that a reference to at least our own
concern and support for whistleblowers should stay in. Unless we want to
write a whole separate statement on that (which is perhaps worth
considering, seeing the USA's recent record on this count).

I also support the changes suggested by Joana which ensure we do no longer
address the USA as a "global leader on Internet freedom" while still
pointing out how the USA is hurting its own credibility with these
revelations. Neither do I consider the USA a leader in this field, nor does
the Internet Democracy Project associate with the term "Internet freedom"
to describe its field of work - and I think we might not be alone in this.

Many thanks to all who have been working on this.

Best,
Anja

On 12 June 2013 22:20, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org> wrote:

> I'm afraid not
>
> Sent via mobile
>
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round
> > the bend.
> >
> > I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to.
> >
> > Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make
> > reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such
> > protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'?
> >
> > anriette
> >
> >
> > On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote:
> >> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and
> >> leave the last part of the final paragraph:
> >>
> >> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the
> >> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat
> >> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of
> American
> >> and foreign citizens.[9]"
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "So we need others to protect him from US.."
> >>>
> >>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his
> >>> protection, isnt it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> >>> @joana_varon
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130612/9660b8ff/attachment.htm>