SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
We won't stand for this anymore.
Over the past year, nearly 300 organizations have come together to support the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. These 13 Principles establish a clear set of guidelines that establish the human rights obligations of governments engaged in communications surveillance.
These Principles were developed through months of consultation with technology, privacy, and human rights experts from around the world, and have the backing of hundreds of organizations from around the globe. But today, these Principles are about to receive their most important endorsement: the people's.
Several of the civil society organizations behind these Principles have come together to launch an Action Center to enable people around the world to lend their name and support to the Principles. We will deliver this petition of signatures to the United Nations, world leaders, and other policymakers who need to hear the voice of the people demanding an end to mass surveillance.
The Principles make clear:
- States must recognize that mass surveillance threatens the human right to privacy, freedom of expression, and association, and they must place these Principles at the heart of their communications surveillance legal frameworks.
- States must commit to ensuring that advances in technology do not lead to disproportionate increases in the State's capacity to interfere with the private lives of individuals.
- Transparency and rigorous adversarial oversight is needed to ensure changes in surveillance activities benefit from public debate and judicial scrutiny, this includes effective protections for whistleblowers.
- Just as modern surveillance transcends borders, so must privacy protections.
The organizations behind the Action Center include Access, Chaos Computer Club, Center for Internet & Society-India, Center for Technology and Society at Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Digitale Gesellschaft, Digital Courage, Electronic Frontier Foundation, OpenMedia.ca, Open Rights Group, Fundacion Karisma, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, SHARE Foundation and Privacy International. Your signatures will be kept in accordance with our privacy policies.
Support the principles by adding your signature, and encouraging those around you to do the same.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES
LEGALITY
Limits on the right to privacy must be set out clearly and precisely in laws, and should be regularly reviewed to make sure privacy protections keep up with rapid technological changes.
LEGITIMATE AIM
Communications surveillance should only be permitted in pursuit of the most important state objectives.
NECESSITY
The State has the obligation to prove that its communications surveillance activities are necessary to achieving a legitimate objective.
ADEQUACY
A communications surveillance mechanism must be effective in achieving its legitimate objective.
PROPORTIONALITY
Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Proportionate communications surveillance will typically require prior authorization from a competent judicial authority.
COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.
DUE PROCESS
Due process requires that any interference with human rights is governed by lawful procedures which are publicly available and applied consistently in a fair and public hearing.
USER NOTIFICATION
Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising surveillance of their communications and be provided an opportunity to challenge such surveillance before it occurs, except in certain exceptional circumstances.
TRANSPARENCY
The government has an obligation to make enough information publicly available so that the general public can understand the scope and nature of its surveillance activities. The government should not generally prevent service providers from publishing details on the scope and nature of their own surveillance-related dealings with State.
PUBLIC OVERSIGHT
States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance. Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions.
INTEGRITY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS
Service providers or hardware or software vendors should not be compelled to build surveillance capabilities or backdoors into their systems or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes.
SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
On occasion, States may seek assistance from foreign service providers to conduct surveillance. This must be governed by clear and public agreements that ensure the most privacy-protective standard applicable is relied upon in each instance.
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ACCESS
There should be civil and criminal penalties imposed on any party responsible for illegal electronic surveillance and those affected by surveillance must have access to legal mechanisms necessary for effective redress. Strong protection should also be afforded to whistleblowers who expose surveillance activities that threaten human rights.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
We won't stand for this anymore.
Over the past year, nearly 300 organizations have come together to support the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. These 13 Principles establish a clear set of guidelines that establish the human rights obligations of governments engaged in communications surveillance.
These Principles were developed through months of consultation with technology, privacy, and human rights experts from around the world, and have the backing of hundreds of organizations from around the globe. But today, these Principles are about to receive their most important endorsement: the people's.
Several of the civil society organizations behind these Principles have come together to launch an Action Center to enable people around the world to lend their name and support to the Principles. We will deliver this petition of signatures to the United Nations, world leaders, and other policymakers who need to hear the voice of the people demanding an end to mass surveillance.
The Principles make clear:
- States must recognize that mass surveillance threatens the human right to privacy, freedom of expression, and association, and they must place these Principles at the heart of their communications surveillance legal frameworks.
- States must commit to ensuring that advances in technology do not lead to disproportionate increases in the State's capacity to interfere with the private lives of individuals.
- Transparency and rigorous adversarial oversight is needed to ensure changes in surveillance activities benefit from public debate and judicial scrutiny, this includes effective protections for whistleblowers.
- Just as modern surveillance transcends borders, so must privacy protections.
The organizations behind the Action Center include Access, Chaos Computer Club, Center for Internet & Society-India, Center for Technology and Society at Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Digitale Gesellschaft, Digital Courage, Electronic Frontier Foundation, OpenMedia.ca, Open Rights Group, Fundacion Karisma, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, SHARE Foundation and Privacy International. Your signatures will be kept in accordance with our privacy policies.
Support the principles by adding your signature, and encouraging those around you to do the same.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES
LEGALITY
Limits on the right to privacy must be set out clearly and precisely in laws, and should be regularly reviewed to make sure privacy protections keep up with rapid technological changes.
LEGITIMATE AIM
Communications surveillance should only be permitted in pursuit of the most important state objectives.
NECESSITY
The State has the obligation to prove that its communications surveillance activities are necessary to achieving a legitimate objective.
ADEQUACY
A communications surveillance mechanism must be effective in achieving its legitimate objective.
PROPORTIONALITY
Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Proportionate communications surveillance will typically require prior authorization from a competent judicial authority.
COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.
DUE PROCESS
Due process requires that any interference with human rights is governed by lawful procedures which are publicly available and applied consistently in a fair and public hearing.
USER NOTIFICATION
Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising surveillance of their communications and be provided an opportunity to challenge such surveillance before it occurs, except in certain exceptional circumstances.
TRANSPARENCY
The government has an obligation to make enough information publicly available so that the general public can understand the scope and nature of its surveillance activities. The government should not generally prevent service providers from publishing details on the scope and nature of their own surveillance-related dealings with State.
PUBLIC OVERSIGHT
States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance. Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions.
INTEGRITY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS
Service providers or hardware or software vendors should not be compelled to build surveillance capabilities or backdoors into their systems or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes.
SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
On occasion, States may seek assistance from foreign service providers to conduct surveillance. This must be governed by clear and public agreements that ensure the most privacy-protective standard applicable is relied upon in each instance.
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ACCESS
There should be civil and criminal penalties imposed on any party responsible for illegal electronic surveillance and those affected by surveillance must have access to legal mechanisms necessary for effective redress. Strong protection should also be afforded to whistleblowers who expose surveillance activities that threaten human rights.
We won't stand for this anymore.
Over the past year, nearly 300 organizations have come together to support the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. These 13 Principles establish a clear set of guidelines that establish the human rights obligations of governments engaged in communications surveillance.
These Principles were developed through months of consultation with technology, privacy, and human rights experts from around the world, and have the backing of hundreds of organizations from around the globe. But today, these Principles are about to receive their most important endorsement: the people's.
Several of the civil society organizations behind these Principles have come together to launch an Action Center to enable people around the world to lend their name and support to the Principles. We will deliver this petition of signatures to the United Nations, world leaders, and other policymakers who need to hear the voice of the people demanding an end to mass surveillance.
The Principles make clear:
- States must recognize that mass surveillance threatens the human right to privacy, freedom of expression, and association, and they must place these Principles at the heart of their communications surveillance legal frameworks.
- States must commit to ensuring that advances in technology do not lead to disproportionate increases in the State's capacity to interfere with the private lives of individuals.
- Transparency and rigorous adversarial oversight is needed to ensure changes in surveillance activities benefit from public debate and judicial scrutiny, this includes effective protections for whistleblowers.
- Just as modern surveillance transcends borders, so must privacy protections.
The organizations behind the Action Center include Access, Chaos Computer Club, Center for Internet & Society-India, Center for Technology and Society at Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Digitale Gesellschaft, Digital Courage, Electronic Frontier Foundation, OpenMedia.ca, Open Rights Group, Fundacion Karisma, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, SHARE Foundation and Privacy International. Your signatures will be kept in accordance with our privacy policies.
Support the principles by adding your signature, and encouraging those around you to do the same.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES
LEGALITY
Limits on the right to privacy must be set out clearly and precisely in laws, and should be regularly reviewed to make sure privacy protections keep up with rapid technological changes.
LEGITIMATE AIM
Communications surveillance should only be permitted in pursuit of the most important state objectives.
NECESSITY
The State has the obligation to prove that its communications surveillance activities are necessary to achieving a legitimate objective.
ADEQUACY
A communications surveillance mechanism must be effective in achieving its legitimate objective.
PROPORTIONALITY
Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Proportionate communications surveillance will typically require prior authorization from a competent judicial authority.
COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.
DUE PROCESS
Due process requires that any interference with human rights is governed by lawful procedures which are publicly available and applied consistently in a fair and public hearing.
USER NOTIFICATION
Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising surveillance of their communications and be provided an opportunity to challenge such surveillance before it occurs, except in certain exceptional circumstances.
TRANSPARENCY
The government has an obligation to make enough information publicly available so that the general public can understand the scope and nature of its surveillance activities. The government should not generally prevent service providers from publishing details on the scope and nature of their own surveillance-related dealings with State.
PUBLIC OVERSIGHT
States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance. Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions.
INTEGRITY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS
Service providers or hardware or software vendors should not be compelled to build surveillance capabilities or backdoors into their systems or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes.
SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
On occasion, States may seek assistance from foreign service providers to conduct surveillance. This must be governed by clear and public agreements that ensure the most privacy-protective standard applicable is relied upon in each instance.
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ACCESS
There should be civil and criminal penalties imposed on any party responsible for illegal electronic surveillance and those affected by surveillance must have access to legal mechanisms necessary for effective redress. Strong protection should also be afforded to whistleblowers who expose surveillance activities that threaten human rights.