[governance] Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document

[Stephanie Perrin]

I totally agree...I think it is very important that people don't conflate data protection and surveillance, so this opinion was useful and timely, in that it points out the limits of data protection as we know it today.
Cheers Stephanie
On 2014-04-18, at 4:07 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> I read the opinion and its a good one but won't do the job in and on
> itself vis-a-vis mass surveillance. Its important to cite also the
> principles, which have a strong language on proportionality, necessity,
> adequacy and legitimate aim. In other words, vis-a-vis human rights law.
> Data protection is important and I think it would complement nicely to
> add one together with the Principles.
> 
> And I'm indeed citing this Article 29 paper on our legal background
> paper of the Principles, and also their 2007 opinion on the concept of
> personal data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/16/2014 10:54 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I am indebted to my colleague Carlton Samuels for pointing out the
>> recent (April 10) opinion of the article 29 working party.  Perhaps it
>> would be useful to cite it. 
>> Opinion 04/2014 on "Surveillance of electronic communications for
>> intelligence and national security purposes(336 kB)
>> <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp215_en.pdf>
>> Choose translations of the previous link" - WP 215
>> 
>> http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm#h2-1
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-04-16, at 10:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> I don’t know Parminder (and I wasnt aware of that). What I would like
>>> to see is sufficient comments and some suggestions that might provoke
>>> a discussion during the meeting rather than the words quietly being
>>> accepted. I suggested elsewhere perhaps we could call for an immediate
>>> cessation of all surveillance that did not accord with human rights
>>> provisions and privacy norms. I would just like to see which
>>> governments put up their hand to oppose an inclusion along those lines.
>>> 
>>> Ian Peter
>>> 
>>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:59 AM
>>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph
>>>> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads
>>>> “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines
>>>> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem.
>>>> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the
>>>> collection of personal data, including mass surveillance,
>>>> interception and collection should be conducted in accordance with
>>>> states’ obligations under international human rights law. More
>>>> dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using
>>>> forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a
>>>> common understanding on all the related aspects”.
>>>> 
>>>> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not
>>>> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government)
>>>> into the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where
>>>> I suggest  reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was
>>> there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances
>>> then it will be reinstated at your request?
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals.
>>>> Perhaps what we need is some better wording (which perhaps
>>>> governments would be embarrassed not to include), and which would
>>>> strengthen the response here. In any case, some wording and
>>>> indication of level of concern to ensure that this is discussed on
>>>> the floor of the meeting rather than simply passed by as an adequate
>>>> wording would be useful!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>> 
>>>> The site for entering responses is
>>>> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 


-------------- 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