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

Mon Jun 10 03:02:29 EDT 2013

Good.
Thanks for keeping this going through out the night.
Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil signs the letter.

Deborah, just to help to concretize the list of signatures, organizations
that has already signalized its support in the document:

- Global Voices Advocacy

- Bolo Bhi, Pakistan

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>wrote:

> 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
>

-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/a78d9e1e/attachment.htm>