[governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
Kevin Bankston
kbankston at cdt.org
Thu Jun 13 13:16:48 EDT 2013
I don't think it's worth arguing if Parminder feels strongly. But I did also want to make one point: in regard to direct tapping of the backbone network, I and the team back at EFF have been suing carriers and the government based on those exact allegations since 2006 so I completely share your concern. I just think it is confusing to conflate that issue with the PRISM and PATRIOT Section 215 issues.
____________________________________
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 1:09 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> To further clarify. The main point in my addition which goes away with Kevin's amendment is the fact of making the distinction between the claimed meta data related surveillance of US citizens and direct access to actual content in case of PRISM operations that relate to non US residents... Inside the US, the discussion seem to keep conflating these two very different kinds and levels of incursions and therefore in my view a global civil society statement should make the distinction clear.... And of course I also insist to harp on the fact that while US authorities have made so many statements stressing that the content related to US citizens was never accessed, they havent said a word about having made such infringements vis a vis non US citizens. I think that non US citizens have a right to stress this point . Happy to hear Kevin on this ..
>
> However I may very soon be going offline,
>
> parminder
>
> On Thursday 13 June 2013 10:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> 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> 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/20130613/1a0272a1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list