[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Ian Peter]

IN respect of this,  just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? Anyway they can accept the principles, so I guess this is just maybe about how we word interventions. 

Ian Peter

QUOTE FROM PATRIK

Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the 
necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads:

<http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590>

To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed.

1. First, legality.

Surveillance needs to be based on laws.

These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process.

The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated.

2. Second, legitimate aim.

Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim.

Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities.

3. Third, necessity and adequacy.

The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim.

4. Fourth, proportionality.

A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences.

5. Fifth, judicial authority.

Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority.

As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions.

6. Sixth, transparency.

States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance.

They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice.

7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions.

We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy.

Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or.

   Patrik

END QUOTE

From: Anriette Esterhuysen 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:07 PM
To: Jeanette Hofmann ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Ian Peter 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

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/20140417/920588f1/attachment.htm>