[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document
Nick Ashton-Hart
nashton at consensus.pro
Thu Apr 17 06:52:35 EDT 2014
I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet Governance issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There are better fora to discuss many subjects than IG - aside from anything else, in other fora the results are binding, where in IG they are not.
I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the network carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the network and not the data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule.
Just because something has a digital dimension doesn’t mean it is in scope for IG.
On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí <lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:
> indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated, Nick, it has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension and about regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I do think that this is an internet governance issue -however not exclusively since it affects other political dimensions too.
> Kind regards,
> Lorena
>
> Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
> > I think the key issue here is:
> how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their national
> security and law enforcement activities.
>
> >
>
> > This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet
> governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that
> affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used.
>
> >
>
> > On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí
> <lorena at collaboratory.de
> <mailto:lorena at collaboratory.de>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since
> the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own
> citizens, within their own national borders and since national
> intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties,
> the legal hole remains...
>
> >> From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a
> tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think
> about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage.
>
> >> Kind regards,
>
> >> Lorena
>
> >>
>
> >> 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
> <http://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
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140417/a2acdb4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140417/a2acdb4a/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list