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

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Mon Jun 10 06:09:51 EDT 2013


+1

Greetings,
Norbert

Am Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:43:33 +0000
schrieb Rikke Frank Joergensen <rfj at humanrights.dk>:

> Super proposal by Joy/ APC, I support it !
> 
> Rikke
> 
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf
> Of Marianne Franklin Sent: 10. juni 2013 11:41 To:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition]
> [bestbits] [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is
> already done
> 
> 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>
>           <mailto: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>
>           <mailto: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>
>           <mailto: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/><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>
>           <http://www.consumersinternational.org/><http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
>           |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational><http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
> 
>           >>>
> 
>           >>>         Read our email confidentiality notice
>           >>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality><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>
> <mailto: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>
>           <mailto: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><mailto: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<http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> 
> @netrights



More information about the Bestbits mailing list