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

Mon Jun 10 05:25:17 EDT 2013

Dear all,

The Internet Democracy Project will be signing this as well.

Parminder, could you explain why you felt company names should be removed?
Just wondering.

Also, if we are contacting Catalina, would it be worthwhile to write to
Dunja as well? I'd be happy to do so. Is it an endorsement we want from
them, or something else?

Just a last minute edit to propose - in the following two paras I have
moved the sentence that starts with "although the personal information
disclosed under this programme..." to the end, as I felt this made a
stronger argument. The reason I propose to do so is because its current
location immediately made me wonder about sovereignty issues and the extent
to which states have the obligations to protect the rights of non-citizens
and non-residents.  By moving the sentence we have a greater chance of
pre-empting such questions:

"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. The
introductionof 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." *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. [delete: An immediate response is...]

Would people be ok with this change?

Finally, I didn't understand why some of the suggestions regarding possible
actions had been taken out of the main text. Could someone maybe clarify?

Many thanks,
Anja

On 10 June 2013 14:17, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names.
> And thanks for the comprehension.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  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>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 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>
>>>  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
>

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/7d65069c/attachment.htm>