[discuss] Constructive responses to surveillance at the intl level (WAS Re: ICANN policy and "Internet Governance")
nashton at ccianet.org
Fri Jan 10 08:00:47 UTC 2014
The answer is that it depends upon how the subject is discussed.
If it is a zero-sum 'blame game' then no. If it focuses on practicalities that give everyone something they want, then it could lead to something productive. For example, principles for MLATs that balance countries' human rights obligations yet provide useful timely access to information about genuinely dangerous criminals (terrorists being just one type), then there could be a win/win.
As someone on the ISOC Internet Policy list said in a thread on this subject, the "Necessary and Proportionate" principles could be a good starting point for such a discussion. The HRC and UNESCO are beginning work in this area. Is there anyone here that works in those two venues who is going to participate in their work on this subject? Do they like this idea above? Do they have others that might be better?
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Dr. Ben Fuller <abutiben at gmail.com>
>> This is a good point, but here also lies a major oversight of our
>> discussions. Lots of countries pass resolutions accepting
>> treaties on various issues. (The UN has over 550 in its database!)
>> nothing happens on the ground. Despite acceptance of principles a
>> government makes no changes to laws, budgetary expenditures, etc.
>> lots of reasons of course that we do not have to get into now.
>> real on the ground change is usually driven by national interests who
>> lobby and press for effective action by a national government.
>++1 the more reason why i perhaps wonder whether the recent consensus
>on privacy  will make any difference to "un-authorised surveillance"
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the discuss