My 2 centavos worth:
1. I think Adam is coming from the point of view that there may be special
circumstances that may warrant state (or non-state) activities which could
in substance be considered as "surveillance" (and censorship)
e.g., This could possibly involve legitimate police action in tracking down
Kidnap-for-Ransom gangs here in the Philippines; on the other side, during
the anti-dictatorship struggle here, many social movements--underground or
not--also "surveilled" elements of the state apparatus, as part of our work.
Though more problematic, I also do not know if there are not also exceptions
about "censoring" e.g, in regulating and possibly punishing proven
life-threatening content, e.g., if a health website becomes a public hazard
because it recommends to laypersons medicines that are hazardous to life and
health, I am all for taking it down. I am pretty sure the website owner
would also cry "Censorship!"...
2. On the other hand, I think Patcha is coming from the tradition I come
from as well, which is wary about how governments and private interests have
routinely violated human rights and compromise the public interest even when
they invoke public interest.
e.g, Malaysiakini, is the latest + many examples from the Philippines
colonial and recent history. This is not only done by governments, but also
by so-called social movements themselves (the "revolutionary forces" are
always too paranoid, and unfortunatelyh as violent at times as reactionary
police forces), and others (e.g., Churches--right, Gender Caucus?, Academe,
etc.)
3. On the statement: > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of
expression should never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and
censorship."
Though I may agree with Adam that there can never (that word again! :-) be
an ABSOLUTIST view on this (c.f. examples above), the statement refers to
acts of surveillance and censorship which threatens civil society VALUES
(e.g, HR, Democracy, freedom of expression).
Plus, this is a POLITICAL STATEMENT coming from NGOs, and not some set of
"implementing rules and regulations" on governance, unencumbered for the
most part by the dynamics of "multi-stakeholder" processes.
So I tend to agree with Patcha to retain the statement as is.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: patcha <patcha@patcha.jinbo.net>
To: <communication@wsisasia.org>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:16 AM
Subject: [communication 468] Re: Our Tokyo declaration
> Dear Adam and contents working group,
>
> Surveillance and censorship has the immanent character
> of governmental or capital authorities to control common people in itself,
> and they already have been used to control people for a long time.
> Surveillance and censorship cannot be acceptable as the same level
> of democracy and human rights such as privacy and freedom of expression.
> We, people of civil societies, have struggled to protect the value of
human rights,
> social justice and democracy against the surveillance and censorship
imposed
> by the governments and capital entities. And this is the same situation
> in the information society.
> I think that we should continually fight against all forms of surveillance
> and censorship in the future. So I'd like to keep the original sentence.
>
> "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
> never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>
> Thanks,
> PatchA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:14 PM
> To: communication@wsisasia.org
> Subject: [communication 465] Re: Our Tokyo declaration
>
>
> PatchA,
>
> Thanks. Comments below:
>
> >Dear All,
> >
> >Sorry my commens is late. Because of lots of works
> >(including info & outreach works).
> >I couldn't send my opinion. I hope this is not too late.
> >I have something different from Adam's opinion.
> >
> >I have not many information about the issue of children
> >and exploitation of children. But I think, it is important.
> >If possible, I'd like to add more contents about it in our final version.
> >
> >below is my different opinion from Adam's suggestions.
> >2. delete "and other stakeholders." govt. private sector and civil
> >society should be all, no more than us three.
> >
> >=> In my opinion, there may be stakeholders we missed.
> >And we need to consider them, I think.
> >I cannot understand Adam's opinion,
> >"govt. private sector and civil society should be all, no more than us
three"
> >Why no more?
> >
> >However, I cannot imagine concrete map of the other stakeholders, now.
> >If we need to change the sentence, I'd like to change it like the
following,
> >rather than delete.
> >
> >"The information society should be regarded as a collaborative effort of
> >all the stakeholders including, civil society, government and private
sector."
>
>
> Excellent.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> >
> >13. Delete "never" and replace with not. Delete "any kind of".
> >This is too definite.
> >
> >=>The full sentence is below
> >
> >"Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
> >never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
> >
> >It is difficult to understand why this expression is too definite.
> >Rather, I think this is clear attitude of civil societies
> >to the surveillance and censorship system.
> >Many asian civil societies already got many experiences of surveillance
> >and censorship system, and found out the danger of these systems.
> >
> >And I saw the expression, "any kind of" or "all forms of" etc. in other
> >civil society documents.
>
>
> I believe surveillance and censorship are sometime necessary. I think
> our society cannot function without them in some *limited* and
> *controlled* way (I don't want to get into an argument about my
> rights to make money from a "celebrity autopsy" videos, or whether or
> not surveillance of known terrorists is a good/bad thing, but I hope
> you see what I mean.)
>
> I also think there are more fundamental rights (freedom of
> expression, democracy, etc.) that need to be protected from excessive
> surveillance and censorship. So I was looking for a way of expressing
> that, and I think cutting "never" and replacing it with "not" helps,
> as does cutting "any kind of" (which is really just too vague.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
> >I hope to keep the original sentence.
> >If necessay, I think we can discuss it more.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >PatchA.
>
>
> --
>
>