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

Thu Jun 13 12:58:25 EDT 2013

Dear Kevin and Parminder,

Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can make
based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are channeling this
energy in the lists to the word that will become public.

Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions.

Carol

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
>  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
>
>  Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>
>  On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in><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> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130613/0a3a94ef/attachment.htm>