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

Thu Jun 13 12:56:28 EDT 2013

Parminder,

I also support your text.

As to the suggested further edits, my 2 cents is if this is being released/delivered inside the Beltway, then the tweaks of how to play inside baseball from - insiders resident there - I might listen to. But hey that's me ; )

Lee
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:46 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement

Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak

Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one."  (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.)

Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us.

Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown.

We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities  - who have not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of that...

 I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's amendments...

Of course, happy to discuss this further.

Parminder

On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote:

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<mailto:kbankston at cdt.org>

Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech

On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in><mailto: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 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<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/20130613/17ee2426/attachment.htm>