[bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Anne Jellema]

I think we should get back to Ian's good suggestion of developing some
alternative text, which we can submit via the comment box, but also use in
lobbying.
Here is a rough stab - would be great if the human rights experts among us
could develop further.
(By the way, Carl Bildt's 7 principles closely mirror 8 of the 13
'necessary and proportionate' principles developed by civil society, and he
explicitly mentions 'necessity' and 'proportionality'.)
best
Anne
Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection of
personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection
should be conducted only when necessary and proportionate, and in
accordance with states' territorial and extraterritorial obligations to
respect, fulfil and protect the right to privacy under international human
rights law. The private sector bears equal responsibility for respecting
internet users' right to privacy.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know whether that would make it an IG issue or not, but I think it
> still is legitimate and even maybe strategically necessary for civil
> society engaged in IG, to the extent they are concerned with a policy
> problem that is enabled by the internet and can be constrained by internet
> policy, to discuss and develop proposals in IG space in order to help
> address that problem in its proper space. Unless the problem space (here
> national security law) offers the same opportunity for CS to prepare and
> provide inputs.
>
>  It's just a practical and opportunity problem. Of course everybody in the
> IG space does not have to be involved in that discussion.
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140417/e6bcc55e/attachment.htm>