Dear PatchA,
I agree with the earlier statements. They are vague enough to allow
for some surveillance/censorship in extreme situations.
However,
13. Privacy and personal security should be ensured in the
information society when promoting ICTs. Values of human rights,
democracy and freedom of expression should never be threatened by any
kind of surveillance and censorship.
is a statement that no surveillance or censorship should be allowed
in any case. What 13 says, is there should be no surveillance or
censorship. Never.
And I don't think any of us agree with that. And we should not make
that statement.
(how about:
13. Privacy and personal security should be ensured in the
information society when promoting ICTs. Surveillance and censorship
should not be used by Governments to threaten the fundamental values
of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression.
???)
(Is "when promoting ICTs" relevant? Seems to detract form the statement?)
I know the drafting group worked hard, and we all appreciate your
efforts. Very much. Through your work we are able to communicate and
make ourselves heard.
I think we are trying to write a statement that we can all support. I
am sure there are parts of the declaration we might like to see
stated a little differently, that we can't agree with 100%, but in
the interests of finding a mutually acceptable position, we say OK to
these things. We are trying to represent a broad group of NGOs from
a massive and diverse population. Not all are political, and of
those that are, not all will share our politics. So I hope you will
try to change the absolutist message of part 13 of the declaration.
Many thanks,
Adam
>?Dear Izumi and all,
>
>I'd like to tell the the process of Asian civil societies response
>to the WSIS with
>our former two statements from BANGKOK. My opinion has been based on
>the two statements.
>One is the statement of WSIS: An Asian Response (from the first
>BANGKOK Meeting, Nov. 22 - 24, 2002)
>The other is joint statement from Acian Civil Society Forum 2002
>(Dec. 9 - 13, 2002)
>Adam and Izumi also attended two meetings.
>
>And we all agreed to the two statements from the two meetings.
>
>In the former statement we expressed as following:
>-------------------------------
>Uphold human rights
>......
>Further, surveillance on people by governments, consumers by entrepreneurs,
>employees by employers, by utilising new information and
>communication technologies
> are a severe threat to human rights.
>
>Therefore it is imperative to reaffirm the commitment to uphold the
>Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially articles 19 and 28,
>all other recognised international conventions , and further embed and
>strengthen the right to communicate in all international treaties
>and conventions.
>
>Guarantee and take appropriate action to protect the right to privacy,
>including freedom from surveillance at all levels of the
>"information society".
>--------------------
>
>=> please focus on the first paragraph.
>We already mentioned "surveillance is a severe threat to human
>rights" in this statement.
>
>And in the latter statement (Asian Civil Society Forum), we
>expressed as following.
>-----------------------------------
>8) We call on all governments to take appropriate measures
>to protect the right to privacy including freedom from surveillance
>at all levels of information society. We are opposed to any kind of censorship
>imposed by the governments which restricts freedom of expression.
>--------------------
>
>You already agreed to these upper statements, I think.
>I cannot understand why you cannot agree to the original sentence of
>the statement from Tokyo meeting.
>
>One more thing.
>And I think that statement is a document to express our strong will
>and requests.
>Many Asian Civil societies have suffered from the expreriences of
>censorship and surveillance
>many times as I said.
>And I believe that the members of contents working group also
>thought very deeply
>to select the word and agreed with the original sentence in Tokyo.
>
>And to do sign or not is your own choice. I don't think that my
>opinion will make the
>narrow signatories and your suggestion will make broader signatories.
>The important thing is our will. If you don't want to sign in, do that.
>
>We who sign in this statement can send our input to the PrepCom II.
>
>Now the PrepCom II is forthcoming soon.
>I hope that the contents working group will finalize our statement
>as soon as possible.
>
>Thanks,
>PatchA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 04:16 03/03/03 +0900, patcha wrote:
>>Dear Mavic and all,
> >
>>
>>Sorry for my wording suggestion, but I also tried to find good word from
>>my english
>>dictionary and I found something. And my suggestion is bottom of my email.
>>
>>"Compromise" is usually used for the meaning of "to reach agreement," or
>>sometimes used
>>for the meaning of "to damage someone's reputation" or also used for the
>>meaning
>>of "to cause the impairment of", which Mavic mentioned...
>>
>>We can see the example, below.
>>I attach it here from the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Online
>>-----------------
>>Compromise (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>>1 obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement
>>2 : to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
>>3 a : to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief b : to reveal or
>>expose to an
>>unauthorized person and especially to an enemy (confidential information
>>was compromised) c :
>>to cause the impairment of (a compromised immune system) (a seriously
>>compromised patient)
>>intransitive senses
>>1 a : to come to agreement by mutual concession b : to find or follow a
>>way between
>>extremes
>>2 : to make a shameful or disreputable concession (wouldn't compromise
>>with their
>>principles)
>>-----------------
>>
>>Maybe, Mavic mention from the meaning of 3-c : to cause the impairment of
>>(a compromised
>>immune system) (a seriously compromised patient).
>>
>>I think it is not so good meaning to use.
>>We can also refer it from the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary below. I
>>usually use Collins
>>dictionary...
>>-----------------
>>Compromise (Collins Cobuild)
>>1. A compromise is a situation in which people accept something slightly
>>different from what
>>they really want, because of circumstances or because they are
>>considering the wishes of
>>other people
>>ex.) Encourage your child to reach a compromise between what he wants and
>>what you want... Be
>>ready and willing to make compromises between your needs and those of
>>your partner... The
>>government's policy of compromise is not universally popular.
>>
>>2. If you compromise with someone, you reach an agreement with them in
>>which you both give up
>>something that you originally wanted. You can also say that two people or
>>groups compromise.
>>
>>ex.) The government has compromised with its critics over monetary
>>policies... 'Nine,' said
>>I. 'Nine thirty,' tried he. We compromised on 9.15... Israel had
>>originally wanted $1 billion
>>in aid, but compromised on the $ 650 million.
>>
>>3. If someone compromises themselves or their beliefs, they do something
>>which damages their
>>reputation for honesty, loyalty, or high moral principles.
>>ex.)... members of the government who have compromised themselves by
>>co-operating with the
>>emergency committee... He would rather shoot himself than compromise his
>>principle.
>>-------------------
>>
>>As I mentioned upper, "compromise" is usually used for the meaning of "to
>>reach agreement" or
>>sometimes "to damage the reputation."
>>So, I don't think that "compromise" is good to use.
>>
>>In my understanding, "infringe" or "violate" are more accurate words to
>>use in our statement
>>rather than "compromise". We can refer it from the below details of the
>>dictionaries. I attach each
>>word's details from two dictionaries, Collins and Merriam.
>>Especially I'd like to focus on the expression, (infringe) "2. If
>>something infringes people's rights,
>>it interferes with these rights and does not allow people the freedom
>>they are entitled to"
>>and (violate) "1. If someone violates an agreement, law, or promise, they
>>break it" and "2. If you
>>violate someone's privacy or peace, you disturb it."
> >
>>-------------------
>>Infringe (Collins Cobuild)
>>1. If someone infringes a law or a rule, they break it or do something
>>which disobeys it.
>>ex.) The film exploited his image and infringed his copyright... The jury
>>ruled that he had
>>infringed no rules.
>>
>>2. If something infringes people's rights, it interferes with these
>>rights and does not allow
>>people the freedom they are entitled to.
>>ex.) They rob us, they infringe our rights, they kill us... It's starting
>>to infringe on our
>>personal liberties.
>>
>>Violate (Collins Cobuild)
> >1. If someone violates an agreement, law, or promise, they break it.
>>ex.) They went to prison because they violated the law... They violated
>>the ceasefire
>>agreement.
>>
>>2. If you violate someone's privacy or peace, you disturb it.
>>ex.) These men were violating her family's privacy.
>>
>>
>>Infringe (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>>to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
>>
>>Violate (Merriam-webster's online)
>>1 : BREAK, DISREGARD (violate the law)
>>2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of;
>>specifically : RAPE
>>3 : to fail to show proper respect for : PROFANE (violate a shrine)
>>4 : INTERRUPT, DISTURB (violate the peace of a spring evening --
>>Nancy Larter)
>>-------------
>>
>>
>>And the word "threaten," I don't think it is "a little vague". I attach
>>the details below
>>from the dictionaries.
>>-------------------
>>Threaten (Collins Cobuild)
>>1. If a person threatens to do something unpleasant to you, or if they
>>threaten you, they say
>>or imply that they will do something unpleasant to you, especially if you
>>do not do what they
>>want.
>>ex.) He said army officers had threatened to destroy the town... He tied
>>her up and
>>threatened her with a six-inch knife... If you threaten me or use any
>>force, I shall inform
>>the police.
>>
>>2. If something or someone threatens a person or thing, they are likely
>>to harm that person
>>or thing.
>>ex.)The newcorners directly threaten the livelihood of the established
>>workers... 30
>>percent of reptiles, birds, and fish are currently threatened with
>>extinction... He said that
>>the war threatened the peace of the whole world... (from C.C. Essential
>>Dictionary)
>>
>>3. If something unpleasant threatens to happen, it seems likely to happen.
>>ex.) The fighting is threatening to turn into full-scale war... Plants
>>must be covered with a
>>leaf-mould or similarly protected if frost threatens.
>>
>>Threaten (Merrium Webmaster's online)
>>1 : to utter threats against
>>2 a : to give signs or warning of : PORTEND (the clouds threatened rain)
>>b : to hang over
>>dangerously : MENACE
>>3 : to announce as intended or possible (the workers threatened a strike)
>>-----------------
>>
>>I think we usually use the word "threaten" for the meaning of "harm."
>>Especially in our statement, people can understand the meaning of
>>"threatened" as "harmed",
>>not "warning" or "announcing", I guess.
>>
>>So I'd like to use "infringed," "violated," or "threatened" rather than
>>"compromise"
>>
>>One more thing...
>>If possible, I'd like to add one more word, "privacy", because
>>surveillance usually violates
>>people's privacy, as I already said in my former email.
>>
>>So my suggestion is as follows:
>>
>>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>>should never be
>>threatened and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>>
>>or
>>
>>"Values of human rights, democracy, privacy and freedom of expression
>>should never be
>>violated and infringed by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>>
>>
>>I'm sorry my email is very long, but I think we need to check and select
>>the word very
>>carefully.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>PatchA
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mavic Balleza [mailto:mballeza@csi.com.ph]
>>Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:02 PM
>>To: communication@wsisasia.org
>>Subject: [communication 477] Re: Our Tokyo declaration: Never say
>>"never"? :-)
>>
>>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>I also support Izumi's suggestion to use the word compromise instead of
>>threatened.
>>
>>original text: "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of
>> >expression should never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and
> > >censorship."
>>
>>proposed text: > > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of
>>expression should
>> > > never be compromised by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>>
>>Sorry for this lexical input but I checked both words in Merriam Webster's
>>Collegiate Dictionary and threaten means "to give signs or warning of" or
>>"to announce as intended or possible" whereas compromise means "to bind by
>>mutual agreement" or "to cause the impairment of."
>>
>>In this case, I think compromise is a more accurate word to use.
> >
>>Hi Gaurab,
>>
>>I cannot respond to your other question as I don't have my files here with
>>me--I'm home. Can I make a suggestion regarding editing or discussion on
>>particular parts of our documents? Can we copy and paste the original text
>>in question right before the proposed text so it's easy for people to
>>compare?
>>
>>Warm regards,
>>
>>Mavic
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com>
>>To: <communication@wsisasia.org>
>>Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:00 PM
>>Subject: [communication 476] Re: Our Tokyo declaration: Never say "never"?
>>:-)
>>
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think it's a nice compromise that Izumi has proposed.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
>> > > never be compromised by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>> >
>> > I have a suggestion in No. 10 (I hope i am referring to the right
>> > document), on national projects.
>> >
>> > The word 'National compulsory projects utilizing ICT", convey a
>> > whole range of projects, which may or may not be involved in
>> > citizens' registraiton. so i would suggest it to read
>> >
>> > "National registries utilizing ICTs, such as electronic national ID
>> > card initiatives and electronic health care card initiatives, should be
>> > prudently assessed with the consideration of privacy issues and
>> > government surveillance issues before the implementation"
>> >
>> > In number 16, reference to IPR, can 'public domains' be replaced
>> > with 'Information commons" , which becomes more encompassing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Finally, If new version of the documents are sendout every
>> > monday, with versions number in it, it would help to know, what is
>> > the final shape of the document.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > gaurab
>> > --
>> > /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
>> > | Gaurab Raj Upadhaya
>> > | GPO BOX 13655, Kathmandu, Nepal, +977 1 499 393
>> > | gaurab@lahai.com , www.lahai.com
>> > X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > |
>> >
>> >
>
>
> >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Asia Network Research
> www.anr.org
> &
> GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society
>
> << Writing the Future of the History >>
--