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

Wed Oct 16 12:04:24 EDT 2013

Also, on the suggestion for Brazil to join the Freedom Online Coalition as
they would then have to endorse a 'statement supporting the principle that
all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline': how is
this any different from Rousseff making her speech at the UN and now
seemingly starting to act on it by agreeing to host the proposed April
meeting?

I don't quite see how the former sends a more positive signal to the
international community than the latter, especially since it is eminently
clear now that governments in the FOC also have not lived by what they
endorsed. And the problems aren't new of course: even earlier there were
sufficient isuses - what about the ACTA proposal, for example?

Because of this ambiguity, I have never thought that it was a loss that
India didn't join the FOC. India did sign the UNHRC resolution that states
rights apply online as offline, and I think it is very important that it
did so. But as the government continues to struggle with resolving a whole
bunch of issues on the ground, not making an additional commitment by
joining the FOC somehow seemed more honest.

Best,
Anja

On 16 October 2013 20:52, Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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/20131016/73fa84ea/attachment.htm>