I do not wish to insist on this topic (and I sort of agree with McTim
there may be not much spooks can gather which is not already public in
ICANN), but I think this statement from RSF & Assange published in Le
Monde today is of interest.
--c.a.
----
http://www.rsf.org/why-european-nations-must-protect-03-07-2013,44886.html
- International
Why European nations must protect Edward Snowden
3 July 2013
The general secretary of Reporters Without Borders Christophe Deloire,
and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange co-sign today an Op-Ed in Le Monde
to call out the states of the European Union to protect Edward Snowden.
On October 12, 2012, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize for
contributing to the “advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy
and human rights in Europe.” The EU should show itself worthy of this
honor and show its will to defend freedom of information, regardless of
fears of political pressure from its so-called closest ally, the United
States.
Now that Edward Snowden, the young American who revealed the global
monitoring system known as Prism, has requested asylum from 20
countries, the EU nations should extend a welcome, under whatever law or
status seems most appropriate.
Although the United States remains a world leader in upholding the ideal
of freedom of expression, the American attitude toward whistleblowers
sullies the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In 2004, the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression, as well as
his counterparts in the Organization of American States and the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe issued a joint call
to all governments to protect whistleblowers from all “legal,
administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in ‘good
faith.’” Whistleblowers were defined as “individuals releasing
confidential or secret information although they are under an official
or other obligation to maintain confidentiality or secrecy.”
More recently, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
resolved in 2010 that, “the definition of protected disclosures shall
include all bona fide warnings against various types of unlawful acts.”
The Assembly’s Resolution 1729 concluded that member countries’ laws
“should therefore cover both public and private sector whistle-blowers,
including members of the armed forces and special services.”
Some are calling for a manhunt for Snowden on the grounds that he is a
traitor, and others are trying to cloak the issues he raised in
legalistic complexities. But what serious person can deny that Edward
Snowden is a whistleblower?
The digital communications specialist’s revelations have enabled the
international press, including the Washington Post, The Guardian, and
Der Spiegel, to shine a light on a surveillance system that tracks tens
of millions of citizens, Europeans among them.
Targeted by an apparatus that threatens their sovereignty as well as
their principles, the EU countries owe Snowden a debt of gratitude for
his revelations, which were clearly in the public interest.
This young man will remain abandoned in the transit zone of the Moscow
airport only if the European countries abandon their principles, as well
as a major part of the raison d’être of the EU. Expressions of
diplomatic outrage will be empty gestures if the person responsible for
the revelations is left isolated and abandoned.
Beyond the necessity of providing a legal shield for whistleblowers, the
protection of privacy is a matter of clear public interest, especially
in the realm of freedom of information. Frank La Rue, the UN special
rapporteur on freedom of expression, noted in a report last June that
“arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy...threaten
the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
The confidentiality of written and oral exchanges is essential to
ensuring the exercise of freedom of information. But when journalists’
sources are compromised, as happened in the case of The Associated
Press; when the United States abuses the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that
has been invoked a total of nine times against whistleblowers, six of
these cases under the Obama administration; when the government tries to
silence WikiLeaks by imposing a financial embargo on the organization
and by subjecting associates and friends of Julian Assange to abusive
searches when they enter the United States, when the site’s founder and
his colleagues are threatened with U.S. prosecution, more than American
democracy is threatened.
Indeed, the very model of democracy that the heirs of Thomas Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin are responsible for upholding has been robbed of
its essence.
By what right is the United States exempt from principles that it
demands be applied elsewhere?
In January, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a historic
speech in which she defined freedom of expression as a cornerstone of
American diplomacy. She reiterated that position in February, 2011, in
another speech in which she said that “on the spectrum of internet
freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness.”
Eloquent words. They may have brought encouragement to dissidents in
Tehran, Beijing, Havana, Asmara, Ashgabat, Moscow and so many other
capitals. But how disappointing to find that the skyscrapers of American
surveillance have reached a size to match China’s technological Great Wall.
The White House and State Department message of democracy and defence of
human rights has lost considerable credibility. One sign of widespread
concern – Amazon has reported a 6,000% increase in sales of the George
Orwell classic, 1984.
Now, with Big Brother watching us from a Washington suburb, the key
institutions of American democracy must play their assigned roles of
counterweight to the executive branch and its abuses. The system of
checks and balances is more than a slogan for avid readers of
Tocqueville and Montesquieu.
American leaders should realize the glaring contradiction between their
soaring odes to freedom and the realities of official actions, which
damage the image of their country.
Members of Congress must be capable of holding back the tide of security
provisions of the Patriot Act by recognizing the legitimate rights of
men and women who sound the alarm. The Whistleblower Protection Act must
be amended to ensure effective protection for whistleblowers who act in
the public interest – an interest completely separate from immediate
national concerns as intelligence services interpret them.
----
On 07/03/2013 09:31 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I think that viewing issues from the perspective US vs rest of the world,
> or democratic countries vs authoritarian countries or whatever led us to
> wrong perceptions. the reality is that we have concerning trend with
> states pushing for more control, e.g. within ICANN with GAC , regulation
> and have contradictory policies (supporting free internet
> but implementing surveillance like in USA or talking about access ,
> "democratizing" governance and also implementing surveillance too in
> caseIndia ) whatever for political control and threats against FoE or just
> to defend economic interests or maximalist copyright .
> as someone who used with filtered internet for many years I know that was
> the tunisian government doing that and not USG while US companies sold the
> menas to set censorship.
> Things are more complicated :)
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/7/3 Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> At a minimum. After all, they are contractors with the USG, responsible
>> for subcontracting the management of root servers which are considered
>> integral part of national security.
>>
>> If the USG orders submissive Italy, France, Portugal and Spain not to
>> let Bolivia's president Morales to land for refuelling -- putting his
>> live at risk --, why wouldn't they have a few spooks wandering about in
>> ICANN, either for real or virtually? :)
>>
>> No one is happier than China with these events! Now we understand better
>> what Hillary meant by her perorations on the importance of the "free and
>> open Internet". Free and open for US spooks to peek into, I gather.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 07/03/2013 02:08 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> Considering the NSA and PRISM stuff and that they are into Microsoft,
>>> Google, Apple, Facebook, etc - shouldn't we assume that ICANN has been
>>> compromised? Considering everything else they are into how can they not
>>> be into ICANN?
>>>
>>> Having said that - what does that mean to our trip?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>
|
