No subject


Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 EST 2022


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
>      
>


--------------050108030500020909080405
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    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...<br>
    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.<br>
    Kind regards,<br>
    Lorena<br>
    <br>
    QUOTE FROM PATRIK
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v-V-OHF-0XiMt8Wca+B1yer-Ms2HzyCCBjv4WOPX99CDQ at mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>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 </div>
                    <div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="http://necessaryandproportionate.org"
                        target="_blank">necessaryandproportionate.org</a>
                      principles, so such negotiations will fail. A
                      counter proposal has been released by the Swedish
                      Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads:</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590"
                        target="_blank">http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590</a>></div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>To this objective, let me propose seven
                      principles I believe should be observed.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>1. First, legality.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>Surveillance needs to be based on laws.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>These laws must be adopted in a transparent
                      manner through a democratic process.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>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.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>2. Second, legitimate aim.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of
                      a legitimate and well-defined aim.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>Surveillance measures may never be carried out
                      in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and
                      only by specified state authorities.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>3. Third, necessity and adequacy.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>The law should justify that surveillance is
                      necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate
                      aim.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>4. Fourth, proportionality.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>A sound proportionality judgment must be made,
                      to carefully assess whether the benefits of
                      surveillance outweigh its negative consequences.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>5. Fifth, judicial authority.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>Decisions on the use of communications
                      surveillance should be taken by a competent
                      authority.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>As a general rule, an independent court should
                      take such decisions.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>6. Sixth, transparency.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>States should be as transparent as possible
                      about how they carry out surveillance.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>They should provide information on how the
                      surveillance legislation works in practice.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary
                      or other credible institutions.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to
                      create transparency and build trust and
                      legitimacy.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>Our obligation as governments is to provide
                      security and to respect human rights - not either
                      or.</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>   Patrik</div>
                    <div> </div>
                    <div>END QUOTE</div>
                    <div
style="font-style:normal;font-size:small;display:inline;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';font-weight:normal">
                      <div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
                        <div> </div>
                        <div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
                          <div><br>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------050108030500020909080405--


More information about the Bestbits mailing list