[governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...)

Tue Jun 11 22:54:32 EDT 2013

Whilst it may be easier to sign, there are few considerations missing from the statement. It would also be good to have an IGC statement on the issue as well.

My thoughts are:

Whilst national security is an exception to Article 19 of the ICCPR, and where there is well established jurisprudence that on certain occasions and under certain circumstances human rights may be suspended.

With matters of national security and threats to public safety, there is emerging (reality is that it has been around since Nixon and the wiretapping saga but only in recent times gained exposure due to multiple factors) jurisprudence amongst states and law enforcement that states need to know "everything".

Countries that are traditionally known for preserving tenets of fundamental rights and freedoms are clearly evolving:

*France
*US
*UK

Any member country of the Interpol, Europol have state authorized mechanisms for surveillance, most are founded on handshakes. On the other hand states that are often labelled as "communistic" for diverse reasons such as:
*China
*Syria
*Iran

What we are seeing is states (all shapes and sizes) seem to be moving to greater state sponsored surveillance. Whilst the manifestation is the violation of privacy, what we should be addressing is the tectonic shifts that are causing them.

As stakeholders within a global community, we cannot address and confront states without other stakeholders aside from states who carry out these actions whilst condoning the same action from other stakeholders in the global community. There has to be a sense of being non-partisan in the objectivity within which we raise our concerns.

States have reasons (national security, threats of terrorism), the private sector has reasons (knowing market needs, behaviour, patterns), criminals have their reasons (exploitation for gain, desire to cause harm) etc.

We as civil society must speak and address these issues in a manner that is balanced, sustainable where we point to a standard where the world needs to be accountable.

I would also suggest that in the IGC statement, that we can call on civil society around the world, states and private sector to act responsibly. We can also call on Parliaments around the world and communities to think deeply about these issues and craft balanced laws and policies. 

Additional Comments

I am sharing this as I know that in much of the world, countries are moving to address the important balance between national security and rights of individuals which is where I feel the real advocacy should happen.

(Recently, in my own country, I was retained through a regional university to lead the national consultations for Cyber security at the request of my Government through the Ministry of Defence with the view of drafting the strategy, policy etc with our cyber security working group. I deliberately wove issues of privacy in the discussions and was surprised that there was overwhelming comments for support for privacy from the private sector, public sector and civil society.)

Kind Regards,

Sala

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:53 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it would be far easier and probably more useful to sign on to
> the statement APC had read out in Geneva:
> 
> Civil Society Statement read by the Association for Progressive
> Communications to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State
> Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case.
> 
> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of several civil society
> organizations from around the world. We express strong concern over
> recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone
> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the
> United States of America and the fact that US authorities makes the
> results of that surveillance available to other governments such as
> the United Kingdom. Of equal concern is the indication of apparent
> complicity of some US-based Internet companies with global reach.
> These revelations suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human
> rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International
> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12
> and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which
> "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be
> protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..." But during
> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr.
> Frank La Rue, reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state
> surveillance of communications with serious implications for the
> exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and
> expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and
> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary
> and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications
> and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to
> freedom of opinion and expression".
> 
> The application of surveillance mechanisms to the heart of global
> digital communications drastically threatens the protection of human
> rights in the digital age. As Frank La Rue notes in reference to such
> actions: "This raises serious concern with regard to the
> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the
> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign
> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign
> surveillance, or seek remedies." This recent case is an example of
> human rights violations specifically relevant to the Internet, and one
> foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of
> Expression and the Internet.
> 
> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public.
> As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers
> ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government
> action by citizens. "We urge States protect those whistleblowers
> involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat
> violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens.
> Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and
> upholding the human rights of all.
> 
> We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent the
> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by:
> 
> 1) convening a special session to examine this case
> 
> 2) supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the
> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a
> new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of
> technological advancements, and,
> 
> 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that:
> a) formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on
> surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet
> human rights standards, and,
> b) examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human
> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business
> and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of
> A/HRC/RES/17/4.
> 1
> 
> Statement endorsed by:
> 
> Access, International
> Association for Progressive Communications (APC), International
> Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil
> Global Voices Advocacy, International
> IT for Change, India
> Bolo Bhi, Pakistan
> La Quadrature du Net, Europe, France
> The Internet Democracy Project, India
> Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan
> Privacy International
> PROTESTE - Associação de Consumidores, Brazil
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that
>> this threda is about developing a statement.
>> 
>> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling)
>> 
>> Now online in an etherpad at:
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> --
>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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