[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
joy
joy at apc.org
Wed Jun 12 16:18:04 EDT 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ginger - just to answer your question on law in other countries: yes
there are quite a few with such protection - ironically including some
of those under surveillance - New Zealand has whistleblower laws for
example that include disclosures of wrong doing by public authorities:
https://www.internationalwhistleblowers.com/legislations/406/68-home-office-leaker#DLM2035939
an interesting question (whch i have not had time to look at) is whether
snowden for exmaple would have been protected under NZ law if he had
made the revelations about NZ government activity in passing on
information (or the UK etc)
Joy
On 13/06/2013 5:06 a.m., Ginger Paque wrote:
> There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but this is subject to
interpretation and the scope of the particular whistleblower statute you
are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is further complicated by
'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and possible allegations of
treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley Manning/Wikileaks)
>
> Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing
or corporate fraud.
>
> Do other countries besides the USA offer protections?
>
> gp
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>
> /*The latest from Diplo...*/ //Upcoming online courses in Internet
governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance
specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT
Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection.
//Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses//
>
> *//*
>
>
> On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:202.407.8834> direct
> >>>> 202.637.0968 <tel:202.637.0968> fax
> >>>> kbankston at cdt.org <mailto:kbankston at cdt.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon
<joana at varonferraz.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:202.407.8834> direct
> >>>>>> 202.637.0968 <tel:202.637.0968> fax
> >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:202.407.8834> direct
> >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 <tel:202.637.0968> fax
> >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org <mailto:kbankston at cdt.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <
> >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org <mailto: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> [
> >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com
<mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com> <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
<mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com>;
> >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive
communications
> >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
> >>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
> >>>>>>>>> south africa
> >>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> 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
<mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe 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
<mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
> >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe 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 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
> >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com
<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> >>>>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
> >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
> >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 <tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuNd8AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqwI4IAJe5YP3MlLXU3mqaHP1k6a65
1/Fil6zd88WlrBx2/Fs/gGc6N+FokUW8zTatoNfDc5chi766BxArUZfv65wWoHtg
wTaDdm9rbGHK911tT47MEVho6ppinMR4JK1jbGKsCu3YVFCsGn8/68HB9Xpdkewt
06IYhBTaBcvDSV2ZUu2Pmq80WgCjksCb8NxzuiOdrCGM5sFaJocv5ME/KVZgGzwi
W8Zr7CZLJrtWjHGqfdNZBw2y7sKoqgDi2sWplfS/bq9AVqbMQgsuwBGKoJWPp3pd
GNUPoa8ghNtBeDtQ1HACAfdPbyWhVculTsO/onQ03a4vvLeTljWj5FOp1T7t6dQ=
=1jOI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130613/d381c1fb/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list