[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation

[parminder]

To add to this very important discussion, when we seek new privacy norms 
and frameworks, we must also first inspect the current regimes. Just 
because vested interests tell us, and some of us are naive to believe 
it, it is of course  not true that there are no existing 'policy' 
regimes around the global Internet.

What are these.

Just yesterday or so, Facebook said that it is updating its privacy 
provisions. This follows a settlement with a US court. Quoting Facebook 
spokesperson, 
<http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/29/facebooks-new-rules-change-how-it-treats-your-data-and-who-can-access-it/> 
" Facebook is proposing this update as part of a settlement in a court 
case relating to advertising."

We can see here that the US state is setting the global privacy norms. 
For others, it is a take it or leave it.

Next, the Trans- Atlantic Trade Agreement to be negotiated between the 
US and the EU will see some serious give and take on what would become 
the global privacy frameworks. The give and take, in the secret and 
narrowly self-interest driven processes of pluri lateral trade 
agreements, would largely be of a non-normative nature. It will be more 
of what do I gain, what can I live with, what people will say when they 
know, kind of stuff..... All this of a kind much worse than what happens 
in multilateral settings.

The above kind of processes will soon set what would be more or less the 
final privacy frameworks for the global Internet.

Do those who so passionately argue for keeping governemnts away from 
'Internet regulation', which includes developing and enforcing global 
privacy frameworks, really not realise that governemnts, as above, are 
already doing it, and solidly so. And the same governments who are 
'doing it' so enthusiastically (including through funds) encourage the 
'multistakeholder constituency' to fight against regulation of the 
Internet, which basically serves the very useful purpose for these 
government of keeping the developjng countires away from the levers of 
global governance. This is turn helps consolidate the North's 
geo-economic and geo-political (and geo-cultural) advantage (more of the 
US than of others). So, in whose hands is the civil society really 
playing, whether they realise it or not.

In all that is happening on the global privacy regulation front, as 
described above, developing countries are simply spectators. They are 
told - when we are done, we will let you know. And then, as was done 
with CoE's cyber-security agreement or is currently being done with the 
OECD's Internet policy making principles, we will ask you to sign on the 
pre-agreed policy framework, which you bloody well will do, if you do 
not want to be knocked off the global Internet's 'best opportunities'.

I heard the term 'politics of justice' mentioned on this list. Global 
justice demands that the bogey of the US and its Northern follower 
governments, and of the big global business (and all their allies), 
stealthy developing Internet regulation and architecture, behind the 
smoke screen of the Internet freedom and multistakeholderism, is called. 
This calls for seeking democratic global governance of the Internet, 
while being very careful as we suggest and develop new institutions.

Above I discuss just how privacy frameworks - regulation and 
architecture - for the global Internet is being developed, and what are 
the stakes for those who seek global justice. Similar process are under 
way in terms of many other social, economic, cultural and political 
issues, of deep importance to the developing countries, and to 
marginalised populations. This is the imperative for democratising 
global governance of the Internet. Bring out in the open which is 
happenning in the background, and have a greater chance of normative 
discussions, and greater civil society influence.

parminder






On Sunday 01 September 2013 02:04 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are 
> plenty of examples in history where international agreements have 
> regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, 
> to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one 
> example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is 
> another.
>
> I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up 
> certain actions in return for other advantages.
>
> In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available 
> trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is 
> contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory regime.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 6:07 AM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and 
> some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation
>
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I happy
>> that the US snoops on both domestic and foreign voice and data
>> traffic?  No, certainly not.  Do I think that any kind of treaty or
>> int'l framework would stop them?  Again the answer is no, certainly
>> not.
>
> I agree.
>
> The problem cannot be solved without effective encryption.
>
> Some kind of treaty or other international framework or other form of
> international cooperation might however help us get to the point where
> communications via the Internet are routinely encrypted in an
> effective manner.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130901/0a283b09/attachment.htm>