[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi Ian,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   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?
>

Did he explain why, in short? Thanks. Mawaki



> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140417/33076f59/attachment.htm>