[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
Joana Varonferraz
joana at varonferraz.com
Wed Jun 12 14:16:21 EDT 2013
Interesting point, Andrew.
I believe if the statement becomes more technical, in terms of legal analysis, it could be stronger. For that, we will need help from our US based colleagues I guess.
--- ~ --- ~ --- ~
Joana Varon Ferraz
Researcher
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)
On 12/06/2013, at 15:56, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> Kevin
>
> That’s helpful thanks – does the case in the Supreme Court, Clapper v Amnesty International which was thrown out in 2013 have any bearing? As I understand it, it challenged the general provisions to acquire communications without “probable cause” but Amnesty as the plaintiff could not establish injury to anyone? From your brief the key change we would be looking for is amendment of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 2008 which set this in motion. Do you know when this next requires authorisation (if it does?)
>
> Of course it maybe that any general letter should avoid specific references to legislation, as the current draft seems to, but I would be interested in your views as to whether it is more effective in the US context to raise a general complaint or to focus upon specific legislative/executive changes that you want to achieve?
> Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director
> GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
> Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
> Mobile: +44 (0)7713 399 597
> Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> Address: Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> gp-digital.org
>
> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston
> Sent: 12 June 2013 15:40
> To: anriette at apc.org
> Cc: michael gurstein; webwewant at googlegroups.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130612/4c8bee91/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list