[bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done

[Anja Kovacs]

Agreed that that's a good solution.

Anja


On 10 June 2013 15:30, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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>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>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>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
>>>> > 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>
>>>>> 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 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 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
>>>>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>>>>
>>>>>  @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> Deborah Brown
>>>> Policy Analyst
>>>> Access | AccessNow.org
>>>> E. 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/4f0b74d0/attachment.htm>