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

Thu Jun 13 14:04:47 EDT 2013

I'm all for avoiding conflating the PRISM and records issues.

Sent via mobile

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:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130613/6e6a5330/attachment.htm>