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

Marianne Franklin m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
Thu Jun 13 05:38:48 EDT 2013 

I am still getting up to speed this morning on how the drafting is going; Anja's points below following others about needing to be clear that including a comment on whistleblowers and also being sure to address the US congress in such a way that makes sense to that audience (which is Kevin's point if I remember many responses back!) need not adopt a position that underscores a US-centric understanding.

As this issue emanates from the US, addressing US representatives is primary. But as Anja notes, internet freedom is not only a US prerogative.

Looking forward to the final 'clean' version so that IRP coalition members can confer and sign up if this is the decision.

Thanks all again for the work!

MF

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: 12 June 2013 18:06
To: Kevin Bankston
Cc: anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement

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<mailto: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<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 direct
>>>>> 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 direct
>>>>>>> 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 direct
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>>>> *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
>>>> *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
>



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130613/705ff833/attachment.htm>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list