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

[Franck Martin]

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

However I'd like to know Frederic what process/consultation ISOC HQ  
has followed to arrive to this position?

It is a bit strange/funny/rude that when we ask ISOC HQ some position  
papers there are none but when we, chapter, position ourselves we  
should not

Chapters are not here to do lip sync.

Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question

On 28/10/2009, at 16:48, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates