[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Oct 18 09:08:42 EDT 2013
On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what
> I am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom.
Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting personal!
> I believe what I said was: "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."
There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt see
much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the specific
purpose in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt see any use in
pursing that particular proposal. But if instead you still find such a
proposal useful, just say it.
parminder
>
> I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this
> further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think
> that models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about
> what governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to
> assume the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So
> discussions of international digital rights fora cannot completely
> ignore the way in which the US and India see their sovereignty in
> other international human rights fora. Having acknowledged this, I am
> very happy to engage further, and look for ways in which governments
> can be incentivised to consent to some accountability, whether through
> general human rights institutions or specialised digital rights
> institutions.
>
>
> As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a
> digital rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for
> me to say that it would not have created immediate accountability of
> states to individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in
> the creation of a digital rights enforcement mechanism is a much
> longer conversation, that we can save for Bali.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> 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/c8b06dfa/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list