[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Wed Jun 12 17:40:14 EDT 2013
Thanks, Joy.... this is a complex situation in so many ways....
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 15:18, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> -----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> <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><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><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> <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><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><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><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> <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> <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><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> <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><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> <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> <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><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><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> [
> > >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com<webwewant at googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com> <webwewant at googlegroups.com> <
> 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
> <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com> <webwewant at googlegroups.com>;
> > >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org><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><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> <anriette at apc.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive
> communications
> > >>>>>>>>> www.apc.org <http://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><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><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> <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><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/> <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> <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> <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> > >>>>> skype: carolrossini
> > >>>>> @carolinarossini
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> <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><carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> *
> > >>> skype: carolrossini
> > >>> @carolinarossini
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> > >> @joana_varon
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org><anriette at apc.org>
> > executive director, association for progressive communications
> > www.apc.org <http://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/20130612/eccdf6a7/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list