[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Ian Peter]

no idea why Mawaki. Perhaps others know...

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:17 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Jeanette Hofmann ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

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/20140417/0e3cad76/attachment.htm>