Fwd: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jun 10 05:33:13 EDT 2013
very sorry
Mis typed
I mean to say the names of the companies should be mentioned...
(they are not mentioned at present)
On Monday 10 June 2013 02:17 PM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/7b5e08f3/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list