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

Thu Jun 13 11:16:57 EDT 2013

+1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original
form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we
should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has
indeed happened...).

Thanks,
Anja

On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a
> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in
> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM
> *To:* parminder
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter
> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement****
>
> ** **
>
> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.****
>
> ** **
>
> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost
> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native
> english speaker take the lead on the final round. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Carol****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:****
>
>
> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the
> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at
> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a
> word on it (not that it is easily defensible).  I would like the group to
> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......****
>
> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures'
> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access
> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their
> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been  a word on the
> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is
> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on
> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an
> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very
> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain
> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The
> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of
> this. "****
>
>
> I  still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I will
> address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them separately,
> through a possible second statement.
>
> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite
> right. ****
>
> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of
> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the
> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental
> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and
> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep
> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by
> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."****
>
> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the
> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but
> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the
> other two sentences...
>
>
> parminder
>
>  ****
>
> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>
> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the
> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US
> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground
> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my
> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at
> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....****
>
> ** **
>
> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:****
>
> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this
> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others
> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow
> is a better idea. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> Hi people****
>
> I will say  submit on Monday.  When you kick off the week with it, you
> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..****
>
> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will
> overshadow any other Internet news...****
>
> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next
> week.  I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as
> some that have been made by Best Bits.****
>
> Best of the day..****
>
> Nnenna****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:****
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Greetings everyone
>
> Content is coming along well.
>
> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until
> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it,
> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for
> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day
> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC).
>
> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get
> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only
> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas.
>
> Will this work?
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>
> - --
> - ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy
> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR
> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn
> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6
> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN
> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA=
> =ssiT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> *Carolina Rossini* ****
>
> http://carolinarossini.net/****
>
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*****
>
> skype: carolrossini****
>
> @carolinarossini****
>
> ** **
>

-- 
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/20130613/46a1e2a8/attachment.htm>