[bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
Marianne Franklin
m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
Mon Jun 10 05:40:39 EDT 2013
Dear all
+1 from me.
MF
On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote:
> I support this text by Joy...
>
> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion with Frank La
>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last para, the
>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a 3 pronged
>> approach to the call to action which is looking really good:
>>
>> "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-----
>>
>
--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/bbf68600/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list