[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress]

Thu Jun 13 15:31:57 EDT 2013

another list? oh my....

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz <claudio at derechosdigitales.org
> wrote:

> Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-)
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I
>> think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely
>> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three
>> coalitions  can participate and then report back to their respective
>> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and
>> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us
>> are in all three groups.  What do people think?
>>
>> Sent via mobile
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate
>> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we
>> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one
>> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could
>> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that
>> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand
>> it.
>>
>> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter
>> under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that
>> done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan
>> for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC
>> to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global
>> solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in
>> increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be
>> other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt
>> complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned
>> above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the
>> near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic.
>>
>> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a
>>> while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC
>>> time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we
>>> would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday
>>> so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday
>>> morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to
>>> have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on.
>>>
>>> Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you
>>> have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts
>>> his day tomorrow?
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> > Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop)
>>> >
>>> > I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and
>>> cons
>>> > to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of
>>> > organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for
>>> > Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also
>>> > seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out
>>> yet.
>>> > I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do
>>> the
>>> > handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT,
>>> > HRW... correct?
>>> >
>>> > For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed
>>> here:
>>> >
>>> > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here
>>> >
>>> > Discussion of the contents is taking place on
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> >
>>> > I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the
>>> > final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with
>>> that.
>>> >
>>> > Best
>>> >
>>> > Anriette
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>> >> 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:
>>> >> 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:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>  --
>>> >>>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>

-- 
*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/20130613/0bc884f7/attachment.htm>