[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed.

I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to
work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go.

But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not
just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US
government. It is important for the long term.

Anriette



On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been
> in the document before and refers to principles that have broad
> political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It
> is definitely worth fighting for!
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder:
>>
>> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph
>>> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads
>>> “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines
>>> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem.
>>> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection
>>> of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and
>>> collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations
>>> under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this
>>> topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human
>>> Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the
>>> related aspects”.
>>> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not
>>> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into
>>> the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I
>>> suggest  reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles.
>>
>>
>> You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was
>> there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances
>> then it will be reinstated at your request?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps
>>> what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would
>>> be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the
>>> response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of
>>> concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting
>>> rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful!
>>> Ian Peter
>>> The site for entering responses is
>>> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/
>>>
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140417/f12ddb7d/attachment.htm>