[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?

[Chinmayi Arun]

Hi Parminder,

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as offering
much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states commit
human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track record
when it comes to making itself accountable before international human
rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally has the
US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are being
built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to
government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception (it is in
this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as justification
for domestic policy). I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the
same light as President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call
for states to be accountable to individuals.

I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to
surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance
order if you never find out about it.

Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables individual
citizens, our country's history with institutions like the International
Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much
hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is
accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum.

See you at the IGF :)
Chinmayi




On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>
>  We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the Freedom
>> Online Coalition.  Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point
>> lower than India in the Freedom House survey.  Given that the "Internet
>> freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is
>> quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the
>> status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states.
>
>
>  I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not really
> undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These Regulations do
> not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications”) in the end.
>
>  It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN
> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her concern
> seems to be that there should be some accountability with respect to human
> rights, I sympathise. The Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so
> mode now, pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was being
> told off for human rights violations, the countries telling them off were
> also committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to the
> idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's (I
> still would not support the resolution that India presented to the UN last
> year),
>
>
> Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights
> violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US
> violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no avenues of
> recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and when such things
> happen within a political system which has its dynamics that can be engaged
> to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP like global governance proposals
> are about having a global political regime within which then efforts can be
> made to fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political
> system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation
> against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind,
> from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all
> struggle against.
>
>   I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as
> the best model.
>
>
> Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what 'should
> be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a thing.
>
> Best , parminder
>
>
>  I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely in terms
> of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the ITRs debates -
> that many were stepping away from the actual text and merely pointing out
> who was signing as an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just
> discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and determine on that
> basis whether it is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them?
>
>  Best,
> Chinmayi
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>>  On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote:
>>
>>   For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition<http://www.freedomonline.tn/Fr/home_46_4>,
>> a group of governments committed to advance Internet freedom, it would send
>> a positive message to the international community. Countries that join the
>> coalition endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people
>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From Latin America,
>> only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the coalition. On the other hand,
>> other countries that are not members of the coalition, such as Russia,
>> China and India, have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in
>> the past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN General assembly,
>> which would have put in risk Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the
>> Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning point and a step in the
>> opposite direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from its
>> partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and
>> IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa).
>>
>>
>>  It would be very interesting to read a reply from the perspective of
>> India.  We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of the
>> Freedom Online Coalition.  Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a
>> full point lower than India in the Freedom House survey.  Given that the
>> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from the NSA
>> revelations, it is quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take
>> in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet governance taken by
>> the FOC states.  Hmm.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131016/8f51ecd9/attachment.htm>