Home

International principles on the application of Human Rights to communication surveillance

August 5, 2013 - 11:12am | by brianbeaton

From IFEX.org - Defending and Promoting Free Expression

Global coalition stands against unchecked surveillance

31 July 2013 

More than 100 organizations from across the globe - including Privacy International, Access, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - are taking a stand against unchecked communications surveillance, calling for the governments around the world to follow international human rights law and curtail pervasive spying. 

The groups have all signed the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance - 13 basic principles that spell out how existing human rights law applies to modern digital surveillance. Written in response to the increasing number of government surveillance standards that focus on law enforcement and "national security" priorities instead of citizens' rights, the principles include advice on how surveillance laws should respect the law, due process, and include public oversight and transparency. Current debates over government surveillance are often limited by outmoded definitions of content versus metadata, or stored data versus data in transit. The principles released today concentrate on the core issue: how human rights protect all information that reveals private information about an individual's communications. 

"It's time to restore human rights to their place at the very heart of the surveillance debate," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "Widespread government spying on communications interferes with citizens' ability to enjoy a private life, and to freely express themselves - basic rights we all have. But the mass metadata collected in the U.S. surveillance program, for example, makes it extraordinarily easy for the government to track what groups we associate with and why we might contact them. These principles announced today represent a global consensus that modern surveillance has gone too far and must be restrained." 

The organizations signing the principles come from more than 40 different countries. The principles will be used to advocate for a change in how present laws are interpreted, and new laws are crafted. 

"International human rights law binds every country across the globe to a basic respect for freedom of expression and personal privacy," said EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez. "The pervasiveness of surveillance makes standing up for our digital rights more important than ever. And we need those rights to survive in a digital world, where any state can spy on us all, in more detail than ever before. We know that surveillance laws need to be transparent and proportionate, with judicial oversight, and that surveillance should only be used when absolutely necessary. Everything we've heard about the NSA programs indicates that they fall far outside these international human rights principles." 

How the Principles were developed: 

For some time now there has been a need to update understandings of existing human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and techniques. Nothing could demonstrate the urgency of this situation more than the recent revelations confirming the mass surveillance of innocent individuals around the world. 

To move toward that goal, we're pleased to announce today, 31 July 2013, the formal launch of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. The principles articulate what international human rights law - which binds every country across the globe - require of governments in the digital age. They speak to a growing global consensus that modern surveillance has gone too far and needs to be restrained. They also give benchmarks that people around the world can use to evaluate and push for changes in their own legal systems. 

The product of over a year of consultation among civil society, privacy and technology experts (read here, here, here and here), the principles have already been co-signed by over hundred organisations from around the world. The process was led by Privacy International, Access, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 

The release of the principles comes on the heels of a landmark report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which details the widespread use of state surveillance of communications, stating that such surveillance severely undermines citizens' ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their other fundamental human rights. And recently, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nivay Pillay, emphasised the importanceof applying human right standards and democratic safeguards to surveillance and law enforcement activities. 

"While concerns about national security and criminal activity may justify the exceptional and narrowly-tailored use of surveillance programmes, surveillance without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms," Pillay said. 

The principles, summarised below, can be found in full atnecessaryandproportionate.org. Over the next year and beyond, groups around the world will be using them to advocate for changes in how present laws are interpreted and how new laws are crafted. 

We encourage privacy advocates, rights organisations, scholars from legal and academic communities, and other members of civil society to support the principles by adding their signature. 

To sign, please send an email to rights@eff.org, or click here. 

Summary of the 13 principles 

  • Legality: Any limitation on the right to privacy must be prescribed by law.
  • Legitimate Aim: Laws should only permit communications surveillance by specified State authorities to achieve a legitimate aim that corresponds to a predominantly important legal interest that is necessary in a democratic society.
  • Necessity: Laws permitting communications surveillance by the State must limit surveillance to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
  • Adequacy: Any instance of communications surveillance authorised by law must be appropriate to fulfill the specific legitimate aim identified.
  • Proportionality: Decisions about communications surveillance must be made by weighing the benefit sought to be achieved against the harm that would be caused to users' rights and to other competing interests.
  • Competent judicial authority: Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.
  • Due process: States must respect and guarantee individuals' human rights by ensuring that lawful procedures that govern any interference with human rights are properly enumerated in law, consistently practiced, and available to the general public.
  • User notification: Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising communications surveillance with enough time and information to enable them to appeal the decision, and should have access to the materials presented in support of the application for authorisation.
  • Transparency: States should be transparent about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers.
  • Public oversight: States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance.
  • Integrity of communications and systems: States should not compel service providers, or hardware or software vendors to build surveillance or monitoring capabilities into their systems, or to collect or retain information.
  • Safeguards for international cooperation: Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) entered into by States should ensure that, where the laws of more than one State could apply to communications surveillance, the available standard with the higher level of protection for users should apply.
  • Safeguards against illegitimate access: States should enact legislation criminalising illegal communications surveillance by public and private actors.

SIGNATORIES: 

7iber (Amman, Jordan) 
Access (International) 
Africa Platform for Social Protection - APSP (Africa) 
AGEIA Densi (Argentina) 
Agentura.ru (Russia) 
Aktion Freiheit statt Angst (Germany) 
All India Peoples Science Network (India) 
Alternatif Bilişim Derneği (Alternatif Bilişim) - Turkey (Turkey) 
Alternative Law Forum (India) 
ARTICLE 19 (International) 
ASL19 (Canada/Iran) 
Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia - ACIJ (Argentina) 
Asociación de Internautas Spain (Spain) 
Asociación Paraguaya De Derecho Informático Y Tecnológico - APADIT (Paraguay) 
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles - ADC (Argentina) 
Aspiration (United States) 
Associação Brasileira de Centros de inclusão Digital - ABCID (Brasil) 
Associació Pangea Coordinadora Comunicació per a la Cooperació (Spain) 
Association for Progressive Communications - APC (International) 
Association for Technology and Internet - APTI (Romania) 
Association of Community Internet Center - APWKomitel (Indonesia) 
Australia Privacy Foundation - APF (Australia) 
Bahrain Center for Human Rights (Bahrain) 
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication - BNNRC (Bangladesh) 
Big Brother Watch (United Kingdom) 
Bits of Freedom (Netherlands) 
Bolo Bhi (Pakistan) 
Brasilian Institute for Consumer Defense - IDEC (Brasil) 
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association - BCCLA (Canada) 
Bytes for All (Pakistan) 
Center for Internet & Society India (India) 
Center of Media Justice (United States) 
Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (Canada) 
Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información - CELE (Argentina) 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) da FGV (Brasil) 
Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska (Poland) 
Colnodo (Colombia) 
Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Colombia) 
Consumer International (International) 
Consumer Korea (South Korea) 
DAWN Network (International) 
Delhi Science Forum (India) 
Digital Courage (Germany) 
Digital Rights Foundation (Pakistan) 
Electronic Frontier Finland - EFFI (Finland) 
Electronic Frontier Foundation - EFF (International) 
Electronic Frontiers Australia - EFA (Australia) 
Electronic Frontiers Italy - ALCEI (Italy - Europe) 
Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC (United States) 
European Digital Rights - EDRI (Europe) 
Fight for the Future (United States) 
Foundation for Community Educational Media - FCEM (Thailand) 
Foundation for Information Policy Research - FIPR (United Kingdom) 
Free Press (United States) 
Free Software Foundation Europe (Europe) 
Free Software Movement of India (India) 
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) (Thailand ) 
Freedom of the Press Foundation (United States) 
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression - AFTE (Egypt) 
Fundación Karisma (Colombia) 
Fundación Vía Libre (Argentina) 
Global Voices Advocacy (International) 
Gulf Center for Human Rights (Arab Gulf region) 
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw - HFHR (Poland) 
Hiperderecho (Peru) 
Human Rights Watch - HRW (International) 
ICT Consumers Association of Kenya - ICAK (Kenya) 
Index of Censorship (United Kingdom) 
Institute des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication Pour le Developpement - INTIC4DEV (Africa) 
Instituto NUPEF (Brasil) 
International Media Support - IMS (International) 
International Modern Media Institute 
Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University School of Information Studies (United States) 
Internet Society Palestine (Palestine) 
Internews (United States) 
IP Justice (United States) 
Iraqi Network for Social Media (Irak) 
IT for Change (India) 
Iuridicum Remedium, o.s. (Czech Republic) 
Jonction (Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania) 
Jordan Open Source Association (Jordan) 
Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network (Kenya) 
Knowledge Commons (India) 
La Quadrature du Net (France/Europe) 
Latin American Network of Surveillance, Technology and Society Studies - LAVITS (Latin America) 
Liberty (United Kingdom) 
May First / People Link (United States/international) 
Media Action Grassroots Network - MAG-Net (United States) 
MOGiS e.V. - A Voice for Victims (Germany) 
Movimento Mega (Brasil) 
Nawaat (Tunisia) 
New York Chapter of the Internet Society (United States) 
Oneworld: Platform for Southeast Europe - OWPSEE (Western Balkans) 
Open ITP (United States) 
Open Knowledge Foundation (United Kingdom) 
Open Media and Information Companies Initiative - Open MIC (United States) 
Open Net Korea (South Korea) 
Open Rights Group (United Kingdom) 
Openmedia.ca (Canada) 
Palestinian Center for Development & Media Freedoms - MADA (Palestine) 
Panoptykon Foundation (Poland) 
Partners for Democratic Change Serbia (Serbia) 
People Who (International) 
Privacy & Access Council of Canada (Canada) 
Privacy Activism (United States) 
Privacy International (International) 
PROTEGE QV (Cameroon/ Africa) 
RedPaTodos (Colombia) 
Reporters Without Borders - RSF (International) 
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic - CIPPIC (Canada) 
SHARE Conference | SHARE Defense (Balkan Region) 
Social Media Exchange (Lebanon) 
Software Freedom Law Centre (India) 
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (South East Asia) 
Statewatch (United Kingdom) 
Sulá Batsú (Costa Rica) 
Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan) 
TechLiberty (New Zealand) 
TEDIC (Paraguay) 
Thai Netizen Network (Thailand) 
The Free Network Foundation (USA) 
The New York Chapter of the Internet Society (United States) 
University of São Paulo's Research Group on Access to Information Policies (GPoPAI-USP) (Brasil) 
Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (Bangladesh) 
WITNESS (International) 


Privacy International 
Electronic Frontier Foundation 
ARTICLE 19 
Association for Civil Rights 
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression 
Bahrain Center for Human Rights 
Human Rights Watch 
Index on Censorship 
Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms - MADA 
Reporters Without Borders 
Southeast Asian Press Alliance

WHAT OTHER IFEX MEMBERS ARE SAYING
CASE HISTORY

AT A GLANCE

International

International

 

 

international IFEXmembers17

SEE LIST

 
KEY REPORTS AND INFORMATION

AT A GLANCE

Digital Rights

 

 

 Digital Rights:

Free expression online: a blogger is silenced, a website is blocked, your privacy is compromised.

 
KEY REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Subscribe to IFEX This Week

A seven-day snapshot of free expression news from around the world

 

Also, sign up for the IFEX Daily Digest

TAKE ACTION!

Tell European leaders to stop spying on citizens

  • Sign the petition to tell Europe's leaders to take action to stop the US, UK and other governments from carrying out mass surveillance. 

 LATEST TWEET: 

#Belarus : Today Ales Bialiatski has been in jail for 2 yrs for defending #humanrights #FreeAles http:

++++++

From theTorontoStar.com

Secret surveillance puts Internet governance system at risk - Geist

Internet surveillance: We could be heading for a race to the bottom when it comes to web privacy

Text size:IncreaseDecreaseResetShare via EmailPrintReport an ErrorSave to MystarData is projected on the face of a woman in Berlin. Just how private is your Internet life?

PAWEL KOPCZYNSKI / REUTERS

Data is projected on the face of a woman in Berlin. Just how private is your Internet life?

By:  Technology, Published on Sat Jul 27 2013

One year ago, many Internet users were engaged in a contentious debate over the question of who should govern the Internet.

The debate pitted the current model led by a United States based organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (supported by the U.S.) against a government-led, United Nations-style model under which countries such as China and Russia could assert greater control over Internet governance.

The differences between the two approaches were never as stark as some portrayed since the current model grants the U.S. considerable contractual power over ICANN, but the fear of greater foreign government control over the Internet led to strong political opposition to UN involvement.

While supporters of the current model ultimately prevailed at a UN conference in Dubai last December where most Western democracies, including Canada, strongly rejected major Internet governance reforms, the issue was fundamentally about trust. Given that all governments have become more vocal about Internet matters, the debate was never over whether government would be involved, but rather about who the global Internet community trusted to lead on governance matters.

The Internet governance choice was a relatively easy one at the time, but in recent weeks the revelations about widespread U.S. secret surveillance of the Internet may cause many to rethink their views. Starting with the first disclosures in early June about the collection of phone metadata, the past two months have been marked by a dizzying array of reports that reveal a massive U.S. surveillance infrastructure that covers the globe and seeks access to virtually all Internet-based communications.

The surveillance programs include phone metadata collection that captures information on billions of calls, access to data from Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (which may even include user passwords), and the monitoring of Internet traffic through undersea cables around the world. Moreover, the surveillance activities involve the active co-operation of the same governments that support the U.S. on Internet governance, including the United Kingdom and Canada.

Not only do the surveillance programs themselves raise enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, but oversight and review is conducted almost entirely in secret with little or no ability to guard against misuse. In fact, U.S. officials have now acknowledged providing inaccurate information on the programs to elected politicians, raising further questions about who is watching the watchers.

The surveillance programs have emerged as a contentious political issue in the U.S. and there are several reasons why the reverberations are likely to extend to the global Internet governance community.

First, the element of trust has been severely compromised. Supporters of the current Internet governance model frequently pointed to Internet surveillance and the lack of accountability within countries like China and Russia as evidence of the danger of a UN-led model. With the public now aware of the creation of a massive, secret U.S.-backed Internet surveillance program, the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue.

Second, as the scope of the surveillance becomes increasingly clear, many countries are likely to opt for a balkanized Internet in which they do not trust other countries with the security or privacy of their networked communications. This could lead to new laws requiring companies to store their information domestically to counter surveillance of the data as it crosses borders or resides on computer servers located in the U.S. In fact, some may go further by resisting the interoperability of the Internet that we now take for granted.

Third, some of those same countries may demand similar levels of access to personal information from the Internet giants. This could create a "privacy race to the bottom" where governments around the world create parallel surveillance programs, ensuring that online privacy and co-operative Internet governance is a thing of the past.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can be reached at mgeist@uottawa.caor online at www.michaelgeist.ca .

Tags: