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

Thu Oct 29 12:37:47 PDT 2009

Dear all,
Please, see the response from Marc Rotenberg. I am forwarding it, 
because I haven't seen Frederic doing it. Mr. Rotenberg's letter raises 
some questions, which ISOC must respond to.

Best,
Veni

> De : Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg at epic.org>
> Date : 29 octobre 2009 14:05:58 HNEC
> À : Frederic Donck <donck at isoc.org>
> Cc : "<madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org>" 
> <madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org>
> Objet : [Madrid] The Madrid Declaration and ISOC
>
>
>
> Frederic Donck
> Director Public Policy
> Internet Society
>
> Dear Mr. Donck,
>
> We are writing in response to your note of 28 October 2009 regarding
> the Civil Society Declaration that will be released at the annual
> meeting of the privacy and data protection commissioners in Madrid
> next week.
>
> Let us say at the outset that we appreciate your interest in this
> undertaking. There are very few policy issues involving the Internet
> of greater concern than privacy protection. We are aware of this
> because  several of us  have been involved with ISOC since its
> founding, and  we have participated in numerous discussions on
> everything from  crypto protocols to the the WHOIS database to
> IPSec.
>
> You have raised several specific concerns about the Declaration. We
> will try to answer these.
>
> The primary objection appears to be the lack of specificity in the
> document. Regarding this concern, it is important to understand that
> the Madrid Declaration was drafted at a high-level with the goal of
> reaffirming basic principles, identifying new challenges, and
> recommending concrete actions. It is not a report or a paper; it is
> a statement of findings and principles and as such is similar to
> other international declarations.
>
> But that does not mean that there is not ample evidence to support
> these points.
>
> You object, for example, to the statement that there is "growing
> collaboration between governments and vendors of surveillance
> technology that establish new forms of social control."
>
> Among the many reports on this topic is the article from the New
> York Times, "China Enacting a High-Tech Plan to Track People"
> (available at
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/business/worldbusiness/12security.html )
> which describes this problem in detail.  We would be pleased
> to send you other citations, but that article alone should be enough
> to establish the point.
>
> There is the criticism that "the document does not identify the
> privacy laws and privacy institutions which are asserted to have
> failed to take into account the described factors." In the privacy
> world, this is a non-controversial proposition. Much of the work of
> the privacy commissioners is to identify new challenges and
> recommend new solutions. In fact, that is why they meet annually and
> that is also why they have invited the input of civil society.
>
> You object to our claim that new strategies to pursue copyright and
> unlawful content investigation pose "substantial threats to
> communications privacy, intellectual freedom, and the due process of
> law." That is not simply our opinion; that is the view of an
> increasing number of Constitutional courts, and we would venture to
> guess ISOC members, who would recognize the risks to users. To
> reverse the proposition, is it the case that ISOC believes that
> gathering massive data on Internet users or filtering the content of
> Internet communications does *not* pose a threat to the interests
> identified in the Declaration?
>
> The final concern is about the moratorium provision in the
> Declaration. On this point, it is critical to note the qualifier,
> "subject to a full and transparent evaluation by independent
> authorities and democratic debate." The point is simple: before
> these "new systems of mass surveillance" are deployed we believe
> there should be evaluation and public discussion. Again, does the
> ISOC really object to that principle?
>
> ISOC plays a vital role in Internet policy. The ISOC chapters in
> particular reflect the diversity of local ISOC members and the
> interests of ISOC members. It is difficult to imagine that privacy
> is not a concern of ISOC or that the Madrid declaration is not a
> reasonable articulation of the views of many ISOC members.
>
> And of course it is the funding from the .ORG domain, the home of
> civil society on the Internet and the domain of many organizations
> that have signed the Declaration, that sustains the work ISOC.
>
> We hope you will reconsider your decision. We would also appreciate
> if you would forward this response to the ISOC chapters who
> received the original email.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Marc Rotenberg
> for the Madrid Organizing Committee

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20091029/c3e380af/attachment.htm>