[bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Mon Jun 10 06:56:03 EDT 2013
Dear all
Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it so that it
is within the 2 minutes space we have.
Anriette
On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Thanks Joana!
> Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of
> APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions
> and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have
> asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the
> current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500
> Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on
> behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse
> the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/
>
> I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it, so look for a
> confirmation email and click the link.
>
> Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have a chance?
>
> Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in less than 24 hours
> across many time zones.
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Anriette and all,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such a short period of
>> time. This was amazing!
>> Here is the link for the next endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/
>> Please, let's spread it!
>> best
>> joana
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
>> @joana_varon
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FOR THERESE_Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.pdf
Type: application/force-download
Size: 56151 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130610/47357b33/attachment.bin>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list