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

[James Butler]

Speaking strictly as an individual, until I can meet with other Chapter 
officials to discuss this, I am very disturbed by the official position 
taken in item #2 of the requirements, specifically:

2. They must not be contrary to any position of the Internet Society.

I am disturbed because Chapters are not offered a voice in the 
discussions among ISOC board members with regard to positions like those 
included in the Global World declaration, which Frederic says is not 
supportable by ISOC. Therefore we would be forbidden from supporting it, 
as ISOC Chapter representatives.

I do not object to having protocols for expressions of unity within the 
Organization, and I assert that such rules should be followed. However 
if we are to give carte blanche to the parent Society to make decisions 
about what we all support as an Organization, as they act as our 
Representatives, and we, theirs, then I think the Organization needs to 
make better efforts to reach a consensus among its constituents before 
making such a substantial set of public statements about such important 
issues.

My ... PERSONAL ... 2 cents.

James Butler
Private Citizen
Member, ISOC - Los Angeles Chapter

Frederic Donck wrote:
> Dear Chapter delegates and individual ISOC members,
>
> Recently there has been growing interest amongst our membership in
> the areas of data protection and privacy. This is also an area of
> great interest to ISOC. We are very pleased to see our Chapters and
> individual members taking such an active interest in these issues.
>
> Recently, The Public Voice (www.thepublicvoice.org) has asked
> individuals and organisations to support its Global Privacy
> Standards for a Global World The Civil Society Declaration Madrid,
> Spain 3 November 2009. This document can be viewed at
> http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration.
>
> As we understand it, The Public Voice proposes to formally release
> this document at a Civil Society organised conference on 3 November
> 2009 entitled
> "Global Privacy Standards for a Global World" prior to the 30th
> International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
> Commissioners in Madrid.
>
> Some ISOC members and Chapters have publicly expressed their support
> for the declaration.
>
> We would like to take this opportunity to outline the procedure
> Chapters must follow when taking public positions and/or making
> public statements.
>
> Specific officials of Chapters, acting on behalf of their Chapter,
> may make public statements and establish public positions as long as
> they meet the following requirements:
>
> 1. They must advance the purposes of the Internet Society, which
> includes advancing the purposes of a Chapter in good standing.
> 2. They must not be contrary to any position of the Internet
> Society.
> 3. They must be prepared and presented in a professional manner.
> 4. They must be clearly and unambiguously identified as originating
> from the Chapter of the Internet Society.
> 5. It should be unlikely they will give rise to any significant
> legal or juridical liability.
>
> Where there is any question or doubt regarding the appropriateness
> of a public position or statement, a Chapter is expected to consult
> with ISOC at least one week prior to its release or announcement.
> Chapters must also notify the ISOC no later than the same day of the
> release of any public position or statement.
>
> ISOC Finland Chapter has asked us to advise whether ISOC will be
> supporting the Civil Society Madrid Declaration.
>
> ISOC does not propose to express its support for the Civil Society
> Madrid Declaration because we have some concerns about the way the
> declaration is expressed.
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Accordingly, we ask that you do not express support for this
> Declaration as an ISOC member or Chapter.
>
> You may, of course, support the Declaration in your personal
> capacity.
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Best Regards
> Frederic
>
> Frederic Donck
> Director Public Policy
> Internet Society
>
> www.isoc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>