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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jun 13 12:14:18 EDT 2013


I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will 
justify my comment in a short while... parminder

Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of



On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote:
> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to 
> add.  For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily 
> wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and 
> policymakers to pay more attention to the international/human rights 
> implications, entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens 
> Human Rights Internationally":
>
> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally
>
> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the 
> various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), 
> because of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its 
> reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other major news 
> outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* 
> how broad the data collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA 
> Amendments Act actually is; in other words, we have no idea whether or 
> how proportionate it is.  It very well might be incredibly broad, 
> which is certainly my fear; it may also be more targeted than we 
> suspect.  Meanwhile, the other conduct that's been exposed--the 
> disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made to or from or 
> inside the US.  So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would 
> be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't 
> know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons 
> content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it.  Furthermore, 
> no one has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US 
> citizens"; they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to 
> your calls", in reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. 
>  So, I'd suggest editing Parminder's suggestion into something like...
>
> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest 
> disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on 
> assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been 
> respected.  The right to privacy against overreaching government 
> surveillance is a human right. Human rights are universal, belonging 
> to all people regardless of nationality, and every government must 
> refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its 
> citizens. The US government's current and future surveillance law and 
> practice must reflect this reality and respect everyone's human rights."
> ____________________________________
> 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 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> 
> wrote:
>
>> +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 
>> <mailto: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>
>>     [mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ofuntargeted 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
>>         <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 v1.4.11 (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 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>         www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>         The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>>         +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>         www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *Carolina Rossini*
>>
>>     http://carolinarossini.net/
>>
>>     + 1 6176979389
>>     *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
>>
>>     skype: carolrossini
>>
>>     @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/20130613/85947b37/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list