[bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jun 10 04:38:05 EDT 2013
Hi All
IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would
have liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do
it now. Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not
been mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.)
I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not
Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to
on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council
meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there?
Best, parminder
On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown 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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <http://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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <http://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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/39d215fd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list