Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up
Carole Thanks for these thoughtful recommendations. I have modified the document and it is attached. Let me go through one by one and explain what I did, anyone who objects can sound off on the list. >>> "Carole Bird" <Carole.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 6/5/2007 8:58 AM >>> >For example, "due process" means very different things to a >number of different people. If it means that "persons/agencies must >be identified as having a legislative mandate to investigate an offence" >I have no concerns with same. However, if it means" you require a >court order" than this is one of those things that needs to be discussed The word "due process" appears 3 times in the report. The first time, I have added "existing" due process to show that we not talking about _creating_ new forms of "due process" but about _following_ existing due process. The second time, in the description of Type 1 access, is hypothetical and in my opinion raises no definitional issues. The third instance I have modified exactly as you proposed. >2. With regards to the paragraph on Public LEAs. I would >recommend that the last line read " but there was agreement that >a basic institutional framework for handling this problem may already >exist" . Done. >3. Regarding Private Parties: Where it states "There were some >suggestions that private parties obtain access to data indirectly, >via their national LEAs." I would recommend that we add a line >following that sentence stating "There was some indication that >National LEAs may not legally be able to perform this function". The draft does say that later, so I have added a phrase referring to that. >with regards to Type 2 I think we need to state that no >agreement was reached on the auditing/record-keeping >methodology and that further research and discussion be held >regarding this topic to ensure that whatever record-keeping/ >audit requirements are proposed have direct input from LEAs/ >Governments to ensure suitability and feasibility. We cannot say no agrement was reached, because we did not discuss any specific proposals for auditing/record-keeping. So there was neither agreement nor disagreement, there was simply a recognition that some kind of accountability would have to be in place. I have therefore added a line explaining that. Remember, we are dealing with policy not implementation. >5. With regards to Type 4 access, I would recommend the line "Private >parties obtain access to the shielded information through an LEA under >due process of law" be changed to read " Private parties obtain access >to the shielded information through their respective governments or >through an agency designated by their governments where permitted >national law". Done. Attachment:
SG3-report-clean.doc
|