[IRP] IRP charter and emails

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Sorry I wont be able to make the call. I think I may have posted to the
wrong list about my changes. Can't keep track of so many lists.
Best,
Rebecca

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>


-- 
Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong
Kong

UK: +44-7759-863406
USA: +1-617-939-3493
HK: +852-6334-8843
Mainland China: +86-13710820364

E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091015/a93fc58e/attachment.htm>