[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?
joy
joy at apc.org
Thu Oct 17 18:56:27 EDT 2013
Hi all - interesting discussion. And thanks for prompting it Eduardo -
I really liked your op-ed - i found it a simple call for solidarity in
taking an holistic, at home approach to human rights and internet policy
in the midst of the global momentum following the Brazil initiative.
I note that there will be a session on Day 2 of the best bits meeting on
surveillance related issues - this will include a briefing to update on
actions being taken to address this issue within the various existing UN
human rights mechanisms as well as various national steps for legal
remedies.
with that in mind, i note that there are civil society groups and
diverse human rights defenders from around the world who are taking
vigorous actions to challenge and seek accountability within existing
mechanisms for this mass surveillance rights violation: their ultimate
efficacy will remain to be seen. but it would be unwise to proceed in
our IG discussions on the assumption that no such action is being taken
or that there will be support for a new "digital rights mechanism" in
some other part of the UN because of the horror of this particular
rights violation and perceived lack of accountability or prevention
mechanisms.
The idea of topic specific human rights mechanisms is not new (whether
in relation to women's rights, racism, torture, economic, cultural and
social rights). But most 'mainstream' human rights defenders and
organisations still do not consider the internet a game changer in terms
of human rights concepts and systems of accountability and certainly see
no need for alternatives - nor do they generally seek them. Instead,
strategies for engaging in existing mechanisms are sought - which is
what some groups have been doing including APC, EFF, Access, Human
Rights Watch, Reporters Sans Frontiers, Freedom House, Privacy
International, ISOC among others .
I agree with Chinmayi -these systems are only as effective as States let
them be, but this, as Parminder says, is no reason not to engage in
debate about them. quite the contrary, in my view, this makes it more
important for civil society to engage.
However, this conceptual divergence (between HR defenders and IG
advocates) still remains a significant challenge for those of us in IG
debates and proposals for new IG mechanisms that develop will inevitably
founder if they proceed to argue for new rights mechanisms without
understanding how current ones operate (including improvements that are
needed) - or fail to develop strategies for working solidarity so as to
make all states accountable for human rights violations - online and
offline.
Joy
On 18/10/2013 7:10 a.m., parminder wrote:
>
> 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/20131018/89dc2187/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list