This is really exciting, and +1 to the other ideas.
We think the issue of internet shutdowns is a growing and worrying concern.
At Access, we're rolling out a project to track and respond to shutdowns.
This particularly impacts Wikipedia users -- with a simple order from the
government (and compliance by telcos), people are cut off from Wikipedia,
not to mention emergency services and the resources the internet provides.
Human rights violations often accompany shutdowns.
We'd be happy to present on our findings and what we believe are
sustainable solutions to this problem.
Senior Global Advocacy Manager
Access | accessnow.org
tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8
*Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>*
Yours truly has been invited to help out as public policy liaison to the
Programme Committee of Wikimania Esino Lario.
This means that, apart from looking for the best possible speaker to give a
"digest" presentation on the topic of internet censorship, I need to figure
out what you would like to focus on next year.
We do now have our BIG 5  and want to dig into the censorship area, but
what else? More copyright or is it getting boring? Which other topics need
to be scheduled? Just presentations or more specific workshops and
skill-sharing exercises? Any speakers you really, really want us to invite?
Please think about it and let me know what you think we should hear and
learn next year.
The fall/winter policy agenda in Brussels has some exciting topics lined up
for us. After the #saveFoP campaign, what will the Commission include in
its reform proposal? Will some Member States like Belgium and Estonia get
active on their own? What will happen to other copyright wish list items
like safeguarding the public domain and re-use of public sector information?
Non-copyright issues surfacing this season include a consultation on
platform neutrality, privacy and data protection negotiations and a review
of notice&action procedures.
Organisational challenges for Wikimedia include learning how to smoothly
shift gears between European and national actions. Plus, we should take a
look at our long-term orientation in view of the public policy portal 
to ensure global coherence.
In brief, there's tons of interesting work awaiting us. After editions 
and , let's pick the best date for this year's Big Fat Brussels Meeting:
And yes, in case it wasn't clear, everyone's invited.
While the TTIP (EU-US) treaty is so far steering clear of any copyright
provisions, TPP (US and Pacific countries) seems to have plenty to offer on
this issue, including term lengths and orphan works.
I haven't had time to read into it, but there's a WaPo article that can be
accessed without running into a paywall:
We wanted to let you know about a new site that we launched to support your
work on public policy and communicate how public policy affects the
Wikimedia projects to advocacy groups (https://policy.wikimedia.org). The
site includes position statements on access, copyright, censorship,
intermediary liability, and privacy. We hope that it will make it easier
for advocacy groups to collaborate with the Wikimedia community on issues
within these areas.
You can read more about the site in this blog post:
Yana & Stephen
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
FYI, this was distributed this afternoon to Mozilla's public "governance"
list (where "governance" refers to Mozilla's internal governance, not
governments/nation-states). May be interesting/informative to this group.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:53 PM
Subject: Surveillance principles draft
Members of the platform, policy, and legal teams at Mozilla have been
working to create a set of principles that should serve as a guide to
government surveillance activities, and that are grounded in our commitment
to trust and openness online. We would appreciate your input on these.
Check them out below.
The following three principles, derived from the Mozilla Manifesto, offer a
Mozilla way of thinking about the complex landscape of government
surveillance and law enforcement access. We are not proposing a
comprehensive list of good or bad government practices, but rather
describing the kinds of activities in this space that would protect the
underpinnings and integrity of the Web:
1) User Security
Mozilla Manifesto Principle #4 states "Individuals' security and privacy on
the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."
Governments should act to bolster user security, not to weaken it.
Encryption is a key tool in improving user security.
Requirements that systems be modified to enable government access to
encrypted data are a threat to users' security. The primary aim of computer
security is to protect user data against any access not authorized by the
user; allowing law enforcement access violates that design requirement and
makes the system inherently weaker against attacks that it is intended to
defend against. Once systems are modified to enable law enforcement access
by one government, vendors will be under enormous pressure to provide
access to other governments. It will not be possible in practice to
restrict access to only "friendly" actors. Moreover, the more government
actors have access to monitoring capabilities, the greater the risk that
non-governmental cyberattackers will obtain access. Endpoint law
enforcement access requirements are also incompatible with open source and
open systems because they conflict with users' right to know and control
the software running on their own devices.
2) Minimal Impact
Mozilla Principle #2 states that the Internet is a global public resource.
Government surveillance decisions should take into account global
implications for trust and security online by focusing activities on those
with minimal impact.
Efforts should be made to collect only the information that is needed.
Whenever possible, only data on specific, identifiable users should be
collected, rather than collecting data from a large group of users with the
expectation that it can be triaged later. Activities should be designed to
minimize their impact on the Internet infrastructure and on user trust.
Compromise of or unauthorized access to third party infrastructure or
systems should be avoided if at all possible and is wholly unacceptable if
other avenues for obtaining third party cooperation are available.
Mozilla Principle #8 calls for transparent community-based accountability
as the basis for user trust. Because surveillance activities are (and
inherently must be, to some degree) conducted in secret, independent
oversight bodies must be effectively empowered and must communicate with
and on behalf of the public to ensure democratic accountability.
A strong oversight regime involves several components. Oversight should be
conducted outside of those agencies responsible for the programs
themselves, by bodies with broad mandates and access, technical competence,
and enforcement authority. Oversight should include statutory transparency
requirements that allow the public to know that aggressive oversight is
taking place and to be able to know the scope and scale of government
access to user data. Finally, oversight should be evidence-based and start
with an analysis of the national security benefits and potential harms of
programs in question.
governance mailing list
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge.*