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

Thu Oct 29 15:36:50 PDT 2009

Dear All,
I am sure, that governments have their own vision how to implement 
"social control", and this remainder in Declaration
will not affect on their actions. Fully agree, that necessary to have 
clear definitions in the document, even if it is very hard for
authors from various countries, all disputes are based on unclear 
definitions.
Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM

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