[bestbits] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
Sana Saleem
sana at bolobhi.org
Mon Jun 10 06:26:34 EDT 2013
Thank you Anriette and all, for your work on this,
Best,
Sana
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include them all.
>
> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC site and read
> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We have included
> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate adding further names.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> > 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:
> >>>
> > 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
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/7bf02664/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list