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