[IRP] IRP charter and emails

Thu Oct 15 12:17:48 EEST 2009

Hi 

Thanks again Olivier for your detailed comments.  Your points make sense...it'd be really useful if you could incorporate them into the wiki.

I just wanted to pick up on one of your comments at this stage as I think it's relevant for people to consider when editing any aspect of the Charter....

-----------
Article 4: "Detect and actively seek and shut down sites that use the internet
to conduct such illegal endeavors"

Is this the correct wording for a declaration of rights? Should this be
amanded to a sentence providing law enforcement to track such illegal
endeavors? Does the current article open the door to vigilante groups
performing the tracking and enforcement?
---------------------

I agree with you that this language is dangerous, and I think we need to find the right way of wording these issues in the Charter.  The human rights framework does state when and how it is permissible to limit/balance rights.  Somebody added this to A.19:

"Content should only be censored or filtered under the most narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws or standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. "

So I've edited A 4 to read:

 * Steps should be taken to prevent the use of the internet for human trafficking. However, any steps taken that limit other human rights must be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. In line with Article 19 (the rights to freedom of expression), content should only be censored or filtered under the most narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws or standards.

* Preventative measures shall be taken by means of education and protection of privacy online. 
* Use the internet as a medium to educate protect and inform the public on such practices 
* Internet serve as a medium to offer information to those who are victims of such practices.

I guess that we'll come across this issue quite a lot in the Charter, so we may want to just add a link to another page about what international law says about limiting and balancing rights...?

FYI I'm going to be on the call later on today, so speak to some of you then....

All the best,
Lisa

________________________________

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Wed 14/10/2009 22:28
To: Bodle, Robert; Lauren Movius; Lisa Horner
Cc: Rebecca MacKinnon; shaila mistry; maxsenges at gmail.com; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Subject: Re: IRP charter and emails

Hi everyone,

Only today did I have the time to (a) read through the WIKI page in detail
and (b) find out that in order to comment/discuss, we needed to be on a
discussion list called rights at lists.apc.org.
I was disappointed because you needed to be already a subscriber to the list
in order to consult its archives, and when I subscribed & confirmed my
desire for subscription, the list server advised me that the request for
subscription would be sent to the list owner/moderator for approval. It's
now been 11 hours (the whole day) and I'm still not subscribed, so since I'm
running out of time, I'll send my comments to you and you can forward if you
deem it worth. I am disappointed, though, by the lack of transparency
displayed by the process for subscribing to rights at lists.apc.org which
should be unmoderated - if you're going to write about rights, you might
also wish to eat your own food. The WIKI is open. Why not the list?

Anyway, that rant put aside, let's get to the document itself.
Not being an expert in the field, I did not engage in writing any specific
part of the charter, but I am happy to see it grow, and I do have
input/questions for discussion, going through the charter, Article by
Article. Please bear in mind that I might act a devil's advocate in some of
my comments.

Article 3

In the sentence "Any measures... ...free expression and association"

there is no mention of "privacy". How far do we wish to go in the "liberty"
department, with regards to privacy of individuals? What balance should be
struck between the privacy of an individual expressing themselves on the
Internet, and law abiding? (and which law?) Should this section be beffed
up?

I see that there is an article specific to privacy - perhaps, a pointer from
article 3 to 12 is desirable.

Article 4

Article 4 is headed "Threat to human rights". Should this then not
incorporate Slavery/Servitude as a sub-header? Because Article 5 is also HR
related, etc.

Article: "Detect and actively seek and shut down sites that use the internet
to conduct such illegal endeavors"

Is this the correct wording for a declaration of rights? Should this be
amanded to a sentence providing law enforcement to track such illegal
endeavors? Does the current article open the door to vigilante groups
performing the tracking and enforcement?

Article 5

I think that this should be split. IMHO, you just cannot put netiquette and
imagies of children being sexually abused in the same article. These are two
vastly different magnitudes of evil.

Article 6

Recognition under law: I fail to understand how an e-person could be
recognised as a person before the law. I am interested to see how this
article takes shape

Article 11

"Cannot be arrested for engaging in activities on the internet that are
legal according to national law and human rights law. "

Which national law? This is highly contentious, depending on whether you
live in New York, Paris, Tehran, Shanghai or PyonYang.

Article 12

Re: the right to communicate anonymously, the clause mentions this right
being valid, "in so far as it does not violate the right to privacy of other
individuals". May I suggest that this violation clause isn't bounded by the
right to privacy, but violation of the Internet Right and principles
altogether?

Article 13

Freedom of movement: is this also the place where the right of access to the
internet itself should be mentioned? For instance, laws like the Hadopi law
(3 strikes and then you're cut off from the internet) would go against the
right of access, as I see it.

Article 21

"Unless and until 100% internet connectivity....  ...are essential to avoid
discrimination and exclusion"

I agree with this clause, but strictly speaking, are *ever* going to see
100% internet connectivity?
Should we perhaps say that although online participation is encouraged, this
should never be effected to the *detriment* of offline participation?

Article 25

Should we include a clause about introducing regulations in workplaces if
ICT technologies are shown to become a detriment to health, whether through
physiological, physical or mental effects?

Article 26

The part about education should also include basic education for children in
using the Internet, an extension of a child's basic education about the
warnings of dangers in the real world. This, in my view, is particularly
important since parents are often *not* knowledgeable about these new
technologies and whilst they might have been able to educate their child to
"beware of strangers" in the real world, they have not identified the
threats in the virtual world.

Article 27

This looks at cultural participation as something very positive, but should
it also include a clause against "cultural warfare", ie. using the Internet
as a weapon to impose a culture in order to "virtually cleanse" another
culture? Or do you think that including this would go further than what the
Charter wishes to achieve?

Section II

In section "Access to public & educational materials"
"Intellectual property and licensing arguments...   ...and should be proven
to maximise rather than limit innovation..."

Could we replace "maximise" with "promote"? I know that it is less strong a
word, but "maximise" strictly means that there is a hardwired ceiling to
innovation, which there isn't.

The rest of the section is IMHO taking shape very well, although I have not
found a reference to the right of having a "stable" Internet, or even to
consider Internet as being a "critical" resource. This, in effect, would be
an endorsement for the Internet itself (with a big "I") - and I wonder
whether others are ready to endorse this here? Is this declaration meant to
be valid for any other future telecom network, IP or non IP based?

Anyway, that's enough for me for now. I am looking forward to feedback.

Kind regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091015/fbcaed4f/attachment-0001.htm>