[IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of person --- relevant for internet governance

[Andrea Glorioso]

Dear all,

I apologise for  chiming in so late  in the discussion.  I do hope I'm
using the correct medium for the following comment(s).

Please also bear  with my usual  disclaimer, i.e. although I  work for
the   European   Commission (dealing   specifically   with policies on
"Internet   Governance", "Network         and  Information  Security",
"Fundamental Rights on the Internet") here I am writing in my personal
capacity.

>>>>> "max" == Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> writes:

    >     Hi Shaila Thanks for your input. I  understand and support >
    >     your  point that the right to   life liberty and security of
    >     person > is possibly  the most fundamental  of them all, but
    >     is it really > necessary to point out that that is also true
    >     on the internet?

    >     In my view this right does not need an explanation regarding
    >     > what it means on the net. It is straight forward.

    >     It would be good to hear other opinions.

My  understanding  of the process  is that  the  first section of this
Charter is supposed to "elaborate on  what [UDHR rights] *mean* in the
context of the internet".

Therefore, it seems to me that the point  is not whether the rights to
life, liberty  and security (of person) apply   on the Internet  - the
answer is  obviously yes.  The  real  question seems to be  how  their
application/enforcement should be  framed when related  activities are
exercised on the Internet.

If my understanding is correct, then I would  like to stress that many
policy-making  organisations  have     been framing  the    concept of
"[Internet]  security"  in a  rather   dichotomic way vis-?-vis  other
fundamental   rights.     The usual   "security   vs  privacy" (false)
opposition is but one example of this kind of approach.

Stressing  that "security" (on  the Internet) is  first and foremost a
tool to  achieve a fundamental right  makes it clear that any approach
on these   matters must be  duly  substantiated (why   do we need more
"security"?),  appropriate to the goal  at  hand (do we really achieve
more security by centralising key  decision-making powers on  Internet
infrastructures?) and proportional (do  we really want to  monitor all
traffic of all Internet users to catch up the bad guys and protect the
good guys?).  And so on.

Incidentally, making a    strong point that discourses  on  "security"
should be  framed  (at   the very  least  *also*)  in  terms  of   the
fundamental right  to security  of persons  makes  the work of certain
officers in policy-making organisations much easier, believe me. ;)

On a more substantive side, I would  strongly argue against making any
specific example of  security-related  policies  or problems  in   the
actual text.  Technology changes very rapidly and what is the hysteria
of today becomes the fad of yesterday in the blink of an eye.

Hope this is a useful contribution to the debate.  I'm at disposal for
any clarification.

Thanks, ciao,

--
      Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/
          M: +32-488-409-055         F: +39-051-930-31-133
  * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali *
      * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal *

	"Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the
     people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will
	secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost
	       protection. They are rules proscribed by 
	         Philip sober to control Philip drunk."
			   David J. Brewer (1893)
       An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091021/0b91fdd0/attachment-0001.pgp>