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

Mon Jun 10 00:37:49 EDT 2013

Dear all,

Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights Council
regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The draft
statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based orgs who
might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we can still
publish it and do outreach.

Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread in
the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to facilitate
endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals feel
comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we can
add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this
statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at
15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame
we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on.

Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and apologies
for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints. Looking
forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized.

Best,
Deborah

Agenda item 8:/General Debate/

 Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State
Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case

Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from ___
countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express
strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and
telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of
the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access
to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United
Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the
globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are
universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may
even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as
articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which
"Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be
protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during
this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported
(A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications
with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy
and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that
inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for
arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in
communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression". [2]

Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross
regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important.
But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this
statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious
revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the
personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the
oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that
court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights
of those not subject to US jurisdiction.

The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the data
streams of the globally central service providers storing and communicating
the majority of the world's digital communications is a backward step for
human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes:  "This raises serious
concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights
violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be
subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to
foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed.

We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the
violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately
suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council
endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4.

We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As
Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor
should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by
citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this
case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental
human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in
promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all.

This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically
relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert
Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the
Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global
Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would
be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to
support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee
develop a new General Comment on  the right to privacy in light of
technological advancements

[1]
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement

[2]
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf

ENDS

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this.  I have only one overarching
> issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out:
>  I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and
> companies to explain how what they have done does  NOT constitute  human
> rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance.  I
> believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing,
> and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified.
>  This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else;
> the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made
> public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to
> always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what
> facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the
> presentation of convincing arguments/facts.
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:
>
> In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around this
> discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy, have
> you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help start
> the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time for
> significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is coming
> from a global coalition.
>
>
> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on
> bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing?  Those who are working on the
> pad can pre-endorse it there.  If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll
> need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in
> the air until then.
>
> --
>
> *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 |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/559e9d13/attachment.htm>