[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Oct 17 14:10:49 EDT 2013
On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun 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 t
Chinmayi,
A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is
completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN
system which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was really
supposed to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement
mechanism will need some kind of a prior international agreement that,
in the first place, needs an IG related anchor space in the UN system .
.... So, even if you want a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which
as you rightly observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can
only enable it... It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want
such enforcement mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then you
put that demand as a CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine with me.
However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism
is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt
that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global
governance of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get
such a enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to
it? Other than perhaps to accept US as the global policemen, a role
which it often arrogates to itself, wherever possible. There must be
some direction that is the right one for us to go towards, however
difficult the path may be.
> he 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
Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An
international regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly
harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - can only help that. On
the other hand, I cant see how such a regime can hurt.
> (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as
> justification for domestic policy).
I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can
say whatever they want, and we cant stop it.
parminder
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <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.
>>
>> *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/20131017/38717549/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list