[bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done

[michael gurstein]

Jeremy and all,

 

I think that it is very important that the central element of these
revelations which is that the entire world are seen as potential threats and
thus fair game for whatever surveillance the USG and its witting or
unwitting (or partially witting) US corporate collaborators choose to apply
and the fact that there would appear to be no meaningful rights and few
protections except for US citizens/residents needs to be articulated.  

 

Drafting isn't a long suit for me (I'm better at editing and redrafting) but
I'll participate as might be useful.

 

M 

 

From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:59 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; webwewant at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the
damage is already done

 

On 09/06/2013, at 4:29 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments,
denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue
requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil
society.  

 

Do you think that this is something that we should attempt through Best
Bits?  As you quite rightly pointed in response to the joint letter posted
to the webwewant list (and as I had also said in an earlier reply), the
joint letter from EFF, Free Press and ACLU is not something that
international organisations could support, yet international Internet users
are are even more affected by the PRISM scandal than US Internet users are.

 

In favour of such a response, one of the purposes of Best Bits was to enable
a broader perspective to attend the publication of statements on human
rights and the Internet, rather than a small cadre of Internet freedom
groups drafting and then pushing them out to the rest of the world.
Against, is the concern is that "yet another statement" isn't going to have
much cumulative effect at this point, because everybody and their dog has
something to say about PRISM right now.

 

If we do want to contribute something, then maybe our special competence is
in our knowledge of relevant international processes.  So we could perhaps
write our statement as a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council
(particularly in the light of Frank La Rue's latest report,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A
.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf).  Or are there other international processes that people
think would be an appropriate target for such an intervention?

 

Agreed that this is very important, but I just want to make sure we don't
issue a statement into the ether that will have zero impact.

 

-- 

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130609/40352c71/attachment.htm>