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

Mon Jun 10 05:26:03 EDT 2013

"We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation
of a global Internet based surveillance system by:
1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting the
recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop of a
new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological
advancements and 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report
a) formally asking states to report on practices and laws in place on
survellilance and what corrective steps will they willl take to meet
human rights standards and b) examing the implications of this case in
in the light of 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.

Joy

On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m.,
Joana Varon 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
<mailto: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 <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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> @joana_varon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtZurAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq1coIAIVkFyZmO+KH/pRr0a4hXkhH
/k4wojL3tG6WzRCY8/tP3v8NVY8L2QIG1PJoSUYw4afnrGWw2KZbEukhWpoZGm8k
l/Bn/BWruU/4uPqGcPr8OME6oa9/CcSK/O0IQ04poiHwn0u81yzZ5BPooxKKmv7W
bjecU0O8qwuE3YNWzNCvWJdNBAuEPg40A6Z7IjiY6w+zdLXAyaiV4XjkpWzXkNz0
rk1kgY1LcG0c6QKdxFTAjDGRC+KUeirxRSpKEd+NdQO1dyrKH0XX82oc0J7y6ciR
G2XLDxJULFIpHl0qBeuXPgy1883vB50RPtghRyQnRxl4rq41T9ED0UYtcOwF5Rs=
=/bjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/e79d1f49/attachment.htm>