Fwd: Re: [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jun 10 06:00:39 EDT 2013
On Monday 10 June 2013 03:09 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> if we do so, I guess we should leave it open, mentioning as
> examples... meaning that there might be other companies envolved there
> werent listed yet
Yes, we should say Microsoft, Yahoo, Google... (mention the whole list
here from media reports), and probably others
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:54 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Sorry, there was mentions at a certain point... but its a bit
>> unclear if we have the list of all the companies envolved.. so I
>> would leave it general.
>
> I think we should have the list of companies mentioned..... The
> list is there in all newspaper coverage, with not the least bit of
> apology and even uncertainty... Naming and shaming is one basic
> thing one dies on HR and such issues. And when the whole world
> media carry these names prominently, for a CS group to be hesitant
> doesnt sound too good to me...
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, parminder
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
>> @joana_varon
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> 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/20130610/0f252897/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list