[Chapter-delegates] Privacy and the civil society Madrid Declaration

[Veni Markovski]

Dear Frederick,
Please, see some comments inside your message, and let us know why 
suddenly ISOC has decided that the company of the organizations, which 
have signed the Madrid Declaration, is not good enough for ISOC - e.g. 
EFF (and EFF Finland and Bulgaria), BBA Germany, APC, EPIC, .four ISOC 
chapters (France, NY, Bulgaria, Philippines), Privacy International... 
to name a few. The good thing is, that it seems ISOC - France signed 
after you've sent us your email, which means chapters see that your 
position is beyond the principles of ISOC.

This upgraded (?) policy of ISOC shows, if one might have had any 
doubts, that ISOC has made its choice with respect to civil society. I 
personally do not see how your email is consistent with the views of 
civil society, but on the other hand, taken into account with ISOC's 
membership at the OECD, TIAC (and not CSISAC; compare 
http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/issues/oecd_ministerial.shtml with 
http://csisac.org ), ITU-T and ITU-D, it becomes clear that ISOC is more 
of an organization of the companies that are members of ISOC than of the 
users and the chapters. Please, please, prove that I am wrong - this is 
one of the rare cases where I'd gladly accept being wrong.

And let's not forget the general sponsorship of the ITU Telecom World 
2009 in Geneva, where ISOC was listed as a sponsor on the same level 
with Saudi Arabia, Microsoft, Nokia, Fujitsu, IBM, Alcatel-Lucent, and 
other of this kind (see page 20 here 
http://wftp3.itu.int/epub/EPUB/TELECOM/WT2009/ExhibitionCatalogue/E/web/flipviewerxpress.html 
) .
One can only imagine how many hundreds of thousands of dollars such a 
sponsorship cost, and what would be the return on investment. In fact, 
when one looks at the list of sponsors, we should think about the fact 
that ISOC is the only non-profit users (?) organization that is there, 
among the big companies, some of which are paying ISOC to be its members!

If you can explain, I would be really happy to be proven wrong.

Thanks.

Frederic Donck wrote:
> We also consider that it would not be appropriate for ISOC to
> support a document which might be viewed as seeking to remind
> governments to apply their own laws and asserting without evidence
> that there "is growing collaboration between governments and vendors
> of surveillance technology that establish new forms of social
> control".
It seems that you are not following the news, coming from countries, 
including Bulgaria, where cctv are being introduced. Not talking about 
the UK, where we recently learned that the percentage of criminals 
caught thanks to the cameras is so low that it is difficult to even 
calculate it. And, of course, not talking about what happened in Iran, 
and the reviews about Nokia / Siemens providing hardware to monitor 
suspicious citizens' activities.
> Further, the document does not identify the privacy laws and privacy
> institutions which are asserted to have failed to take into account
> the described factors. Without knowing what these are and how they
> are said to have failed to take them into account, we cannot assess
> whether or not this statement is correct.
Have you thought asking Global Voices on your concerns? Perhaps they 
might have responded to your worries?
> It is also unclear what are the "new strategies to pursue copyright
> and unlawful content investigations" which are said to pose
> "substantial threats to communications privacy, intellectual
> freedom, and the due process of law". Without knowing what those
> strategies are, we cannot comment on whether or not they pose
> substantial threats to privacy.
Well, again, even in Bulgaria we have faced such attempts by the police 
to have access to traffic data without the need of a court order. It is 
a pity that ISOC, with so many people, is not following the news from 
all over the world; after all that's the least we might expect from the 
regional bureaus.
> Further, whilst devices or applications that observe and/or record
> personal information may raise potential privacy issues, we do not
> agree that the response should be to impose a moratorium on the
> development or implementation of new technologies such as RFID etc.
So, you are for the development of and implementation of new systems of 
mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body imaging, 
biometric identifiers? Interesting how this combines with the principles 
upon which ISOC was founded and is supposed to be driven by? 
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/principles/

    * Open, unencumbered, beneficial use of the Internet.
    * Self-regulated content providers; no prior censorship of on-line
      communications.
    * On-line free expression is not restricted by other indirect means
      such as excessively restrictive governmental or private controls
      over computer hardware or software, telecommunications
      infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet.
    * Open forum for the development of standards and Internet technology.
    * No discrimination in use of the Internet on the basis of race,
      color, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other
      opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.
    * Personal information generated on the Internet is neither misused
      nor used by another without informed consent of the principal.
    * Internet users may encrypt their communication and information
      without restriction.
    * Encouragement of cooperation between networks: connectivity is its
      own reward, therefore network providers are rewarded by
      cooperating with each other.

Following from the principles set out above, ISOC's main purpose is to 
maintain and extend the development and availability of the Internet and 
its associated technologies and applications.


> Accordingly, we ask that you do not express support for this
> Declaration as an ISOC member or Chapter.
Dear Frederic,
it would be good to hear not your (personal? staff? management?) 
thoughts why ISOC can not support the declaration, but rather which of 
the ISOC principles this declaration contradicts with. Only then you may 
ask the chapters not to do something; otherwise you state something, and 
we have to blindly believe it, as if ISOC is a Church, and you are a 
priest. Of course, if the Board has discussed the declaration, and has 
found it against the principles, then we'd like to see the minutes or 
the recording of the discussion.

Best,
Veni