[discuss] [governance] NTIA statement

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Mon Mar 17 21:14:05 UTC 2014

I don't think the US needed a convenient excuse for the transition.  Pretty much the opposite -- this was a pragmatic response to an inconvenient set of circumstances.

As to whether I honestly believe what I posted -- of course.  I am not one of those people who post things they don't believe just to be provocative.  Through sharing of information and reasoned discourse, my thinking on a subject might evolve, but I believe what I post (and vice versa) when I post it.

The EU studies to which you link illustrate my point perfectly.  In the first study, the EU analyzed and criticizes surveillance regimes in various member states (as well as the US and a number of other countries), while being able to act "pure" itself.  In the second one, they do the same to the US specifically.  The public scrutiny in the first study of five member states (UK, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands) isn't particularly pretty.  And this is only based on "publicly available knowledge" (see page 19); who knows what a few "little Snowdens" could reveal ?  Clearly can't "trust" any of these states...  It's really a very convenient set-up, where the EU can wring its hands while its member states go about their spycraft.

Greg Shatan

-----Original Message-----
From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:39 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Adiel Akplogan; Seun Ojedeji
Cc: 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement

Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> [2014-03-16 19:22:42]:
> The Snowden leaks provided a convenient soapbox for the EU and others to climb on and demand this transition.

The Snowden leaks gave not just the EC, but the US government too (and not to forget the I*s) a convenient excuse for this transition.

> Perhaps the EU member states should throw open their surveillance activities for public scrutiny, so that we could compare and contrast the levels and types of mass surveillance actually going on.  Then we could make more reasoned judgments about "issues of trust."
> Since the EU isn't really a "government," and presumably does not itself take on significant surveillance activities, it has "plausible deniability" when it comes to such things.  This allows the EU to "throw the first stone," while not really being "without sin."

Do you honestly believe that?

See PE 493.032 - http://goo.gl/quSyBp and PE 474.405 - http://goo.gl/6Rj9eb for examples of the EU studies into this.  PE
493.032 contains a wealth of information about surveillance in EU countries.

Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

More information about the discuss mailing list