[governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online

Sat Jul 6 15:48:57 EDT 2013

Yes. I was discussing with a friend of mine this evening and we came to a
conclusion that the servers should be outside US territory and legislation.
On Jun 30, 2013 7:23 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Saturday 29 June 2013 01:09 AM, David Sullivan wrote:
>
> With apologies for cross-posting...
>
>
> http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online
>
>  *Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online*
>
> *Date: *Friday, June 28, 2013
>
> In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the
> United States and other governments to increase the transparency,
> oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions concerning
> communications surveillance.
>
> *GNI Principles and the rule of law *
>
> GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy<http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php>are rooted in international human rights law, while also recognizing that
> companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they
> operate.
>
>
> One is still unsure about how much was it a 'compulsion' and how much was
> it voluntary..... See for instance slide number 5 in this news item
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/
>
> to quote
>
> "The seal of Special Source Operations, the NSA term *for alliances with
> trusted U.S. companies*. " (emphasis added)
>
> Now, "trusted US companies" looks like more than compelled US
> companies.... isnt it. And this is from official slides, and so obviously
> there are deeper US gov - US compaines connections than mere compulsion to
> obey domestic laws ...
>
> Also, I had asked, why when these companies can shift their accounting
> purpose headquarters outside US to avoid taxes, why cant they take their
> servers outside US to avoid FISA etc. for the sake of us, non US isans...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>  GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding the
> appropriate balance between security and privacy and free expression. But
> international human rights standards set out narrowly defined circumstances
> under which governments may restrict the rights to free expression and
> privacy.1
>
> GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict the
> right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. This is a
> global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make clear the need
> for informed public debate on whether legislative and judicial oversight of
> surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is consistent with
> international human rights standards and the rule of law. The lack of
> transparency in the United States around the Foreign Intelligence
> Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act and
> Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the inability of companies
> to report on the requests they are receiving, make it difficult for
> companies operating in the United States to be transparent regarding their
> efforts to protect free expression and privacy.
>
> In light of this we call for three specific actions:
>
> *1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions to
> inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. *
>
> GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate declassification
> of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the FISC Court of Review. We
> recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions may be necessary in
> some cases but believe that greater declassification will enable informed
> public debate as well as improve public oversight of the nature and the
> scope of the government’s use of FISA authorities.
>
> *2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national security
> demands. *
>
> While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of national
> security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure obligations imposed
> on companies who receive FISA orders and National Security Letters (NSLs).
> These letters effectively and perpetually prohibit companies from reporting
> even in general terms, after the fact, on the national security demands
> they receive.  Policymakers should seriously consider reforms that would
> require government authorities to make a factual showing to the court to
> demonstrate that harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or
> renewal of gag orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders.
>
> *3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human
> rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance
> requests.*
>
> GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalition<http://freedomonline.tn/Fr/about-the-freedom-online-coalition_11_50>for their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and
> urges other governments to follow their lead.
>
> However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example
> they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions
> between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their
> foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally
> undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support
> Internet freedom.
>
> GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on the
> requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We also urge
> them to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the
> public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as
> well as national security authorities. Annual reports, such as the U.S.
> Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government report of the Interception of
> Communications Commissioner offer a starting point for more comprehensive
> disclosure of information about the number of national security
> surveillance orders made and the number of persons affected.
>
> *Next steps*
>
> GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., on
> behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed global
> public debate on the balance between national security and privacy and
> freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency reforms as
> necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects
> the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. All governments have a
> responsibility to work together with the private sector and civil society
> to determine the narrowly defined circumstances (based on internationally
> recognized human rights laws and standards) under which surveillance can
> take place. We will continue to push for this dialogue and press
> governments to meet their obligation to protect the rights of freedom of
> expression and privacy for people all over the world.
>
>  1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 of
> the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR)<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx>.
> Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles on
> National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information<http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/joburgprinciples.pdf>
> .
>
>  --
> David Sullivan
> Policy and Communications Director
> Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> Office: +1 202 741 5048
> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
> PGP: 0x60D244AA
> @David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
>
> GNI has moved, please note our new address:
>  1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602
> Washington, DC 20036
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130706/f422a925/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t