[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