Talk:PL 3a: From cybersecurity to terrorism - are we all under surveillance?

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the discussion and notes site of the session: Follow-up plenary 3: Surveillance, terrorism, anonymity

Notes from org. team meeting 2016-04-08

present: Mattias Bjärnemalm, Christian Borggreen

We agreed to the following format of the session:

Government surveillance, terrorism, anonymity

The session will be an interactive discussion with short interventions from speakers on the stage and in the audience. We will try to find facilitators that can be placed on stage who can keep the conversation going and involve the audience, while we will allow experts to do featured interventions from the floor rather than having a traditional panel format.

The session will feature interventions:

Law enforcement/national security expert: (Ideally a former official from an EU Member State) who can clarify real law enforcement/national security needs and debunk popular myths about surveillance, backdoors/encryption, etc.

Academic/expert who can highlight the most controversial surveillance laws in EU Member States.

Academic/court official/CoE expert who can give overview/status of ongoing court cases involving EU Member States surveillance laws. Main principles/controversies which may conflict with EU laws.

Business expert: Who can explain how services can be designed to enable anonymity, e.g. through strong encryption, and policy challenges in the EU.

Open discussion involving audience including civil society (majority of session time)


what still needs to be discussed

* who to invite to give interventions
* who to invite to facilitate the discussions
* should we have one long discussion or break it down into topics?




Notes from org. team meeting 2016-05-11

Agreed on title, teaser and description (all updated on the wiki)

Session themes/speakers:


•Law enforcement/national security expert: (Ideally a former official from an EU Member State) who can clarify real law enforcement/national security needs and debunk popular myths about surveillance, backdoors/encryption, etc. (Richard Leaning - former Europol)


•Academic/expert who can highlight the most controversial surveillance laws in EU Member States. Eg. Ian Walden, Professor, Queen Mary University (can’t make it)


•Academic/court official/CoE expert who can give overview/status of ongoing court cases involving EU Member States surveillance laws. Main principles/controversies which may conflict with EU laws. E.g. Council of Europe or Peter Omtzigt (Dutch member of the Parliamentary of the CoE and rapporteur for the mass surveillance Resolution).


•Business expert: Who can explain how services can be designed to enable anonymity, e.g. through strong encryption, and policy challenges in the EU. E.g. Frederic Jacobs from Signal (Mab will reach out) or or Mark Lange, Microsoft (Christian has reached out).


•Business representative: Who can explain how the tech industry writ large view these issues and take action, e.g. through transparency reports and encryptions. Christian Borggreen (Director, CCIA Europe) (Confirmed)


•How do we take the discussion forward (or, move the discussion) and bring about a paradigm shift in human rights and security discussions (Eileen Donahoe (HRW) (TBC)


•/Simone Halink (Dutch govt), tbc


•Someone from encryption community: Harry Halpin (Mab)


•Open discussion involving audience including civil society (majority of session time)



•Someone from encryption community: Harry Halpin (Mab)


•Open discussion involving audience including civil society (majority of session time)



Description:

Recent cyber and terrorist attacks have led several European governments to consider and enact new online surveillance laws, e.g. in France and the UK. This will be a solutions-focused session seeking to find multi-stakeholder answers to key questions such as: What are the features of these new laws and are they legal? Do they hinder terrorism? What is the impact on anonymity and privacy? What actions do tech companies take to increase trusts, e.g. through encryption and transparency? What is the right balance between fighting terrorism and upholding online rights? How can we bring a human rights framing to security and surveillance discussions and policy-making?


Format: Until 30 April 2016. Please try new interactive formats out. EuroDIG is about dialogue not about statements.

Further reading: Until 30 April 2016. Links to relevant websites, declarations, books, documents. Please note we cannot offer web space, only links to external resources are possible.


Moderators (To be provided by Friday 11 May) Jens-Henrik Jeppesen (Director, CDT) (Christian has reached out) Someone from the youth group of EuroDIG? (Mab will reach out)


Rapporteur: Farzaneh will contact the Secretariat


Remote Moderator: Farzaneh On the issue of format and moving from statements to Q&A. I think that there should be very brief “state of play” comments for each of the questions outlined above. This should be very quickly followed by suggestions or thoughts from the speakers on how to address the challenges/how to change the discourse/how to shift the policy discussion. If we do that then we will quickly engage the audience in the discussion.