At Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:36:10 +0900,
patcha wrote:
> "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
> never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
Basically I support this original wording, but at the same time, I
think that we can compromise for wider support of the statement.
Then, Adam's latest proposal:
> Surveillance and censorship should not be used by Governments to
> threaten the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and
> freedom of expression.
I cannot accept it because the phrase "by Governments" is too narrow.
Governments often have private sectors to censor contents on the Net
and to keep people under surveillance, in order to evade
constitutional restriction (Japan and some other countries support
freedom of expression and forbid house searching without warrants in
the constitutions). Only governments have legitimate power to force
other sectors, so governments should be more regulated, but at the
same time, private sectors and NGOs/CSOs should have an obligation not
to invade human rights.
My newest proposal for compromise:
Due process, transparency and accountability of surveillance should
be kept as minimum safeguards for the fundamental values of human
rights. In paticular, surveillance by governments should not be used
for other than protecting the basic human rights and democracy.
Censorship should not be used to threaten the fundamental values of
human rights, democracy and freedom of expression.
This is still weak, but I can accept.
--
SAKIYAMA Nobuo sakichan@sakichan.org