Eu sei! Só quis escrever pois o tema em si é interessante! Público e privado são tão complexos, e cada vez mais. No caso, público são os atos oficiais dos políticos, esses devem ser públicos. As coisas privadas são privadas como para todos nós, só que para pessoas comuns a privacidade deve ser mais protegida, enquanto que para pessoas públicas há coisas privadas que podem merecer escrutínio. O debate público é o debate público, ou seja, por natureza é igual para todos. Naturalmente há mais escrutínio se a pessoa é conhecida; não vejo por que proteger mais ou publicizar mais em algum caso. As coisas estão na esfera pública, para todos verem, por definição.
2015-09-10 10:38 GMT-03:00 Carolina Rossini <[email protected]>: > Vero > Isso vem da AccessNow > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2015, Heloisa Pait <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Olá Carolina, >> >> Não concordo que essa decisão traga "grave consequences for free >> expression and transparency around the world." Pelo contrário. Política é >> algo fluido, e é bom que os políticos se sintam à vontade para ouvir, >> propor, refletir, voltar atrás, ouvir novamente, mudar de opinião. Essa >> gana por uniformidade e coerência militar é ruim para a política. >> >> Acho que não se deve proibir de veicular opiniões passadas, isso não. >> Volto sempre a falar da morte dos blogueiros brasileiros, que é algo de uma >> gravidade tremenda. Mas se um aplicativo não faz tudo o que está a seu >> alcance para que essas opiniões sejam facilmente resgatadas, não é um >> problema gravíssimo nem ameaça a livre expressão. >> >> Heloisa >> >> >> >> 2015-09-09 17:19 GMT-03:00 Carolina Rossini <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From:* Deji Olukotun <[email protected]> >>> *Date:* September 9, 2015 at 4:01:13 PM EDT >>> *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* *[global-nn] Join coalition letter to Twitter on Politwoops?* >>> *Reply-To:* Deji Olukotun <[email protected]> >>> >>> Hi to All, >>> >>> Apologies for cross posting. Please find below an open letter to Twitter >>> about its decision to turn off Politwoops, a crucial tool for holding >>> politicians accountable in 32 countries. We've had great coverage of the >>> campaign so far (you can see media hits at the bottom). Help us make a >>> broader impact. >>> >>> *Please let us know if your group will sign on by Friday 9am NYC.* >>> >>> This an important fight for transparency, accountability, and free >>> expression. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deji >>> >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/pages/open-letter-twitter-restore-politwoops-access-api >>> Open letter to Twitter to restore Politwoops access to API >>> >>> *September 2015 * >>> >>> We, the undersigned, are international human rights and transparency >>> groups based around the world. We are writing in opposition to Twitter’s >>> recent decision to revoke the ability of the tool Politwoops and similar >>> tools to utilize Twitter’s Application Programming Interface, or API. We >>> believe Twitter’s decision holds grave consequences for free expression and >>> transparency around the world. >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> In 2010, the Netherlands-based Open State Foundation created the >>> Politwoops tool to publish Tweets deleted by politicians. From then >>> onwards, the Open State Foundation rolled out Politwoops with the help of >>> individuals and organizations in 32 countries, including the Sunlight >>> Foundation in the U.S. Twitter then revoked the ability of the Sunlight >>> Foundation to use its API in May 2015 and it revoked the Open State >>> Foundation’s access to the API on August 21. >>> >>> *Transparency and due process* >>> >>> To justify its decision, Twitter explained >>> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2301490-case-20502126-twitter-api-violation-notification.html> >>> that, “No one user is more deserving of that ability [to delete a tweet] >>> than another. Indeed, deleting a tweet is an expression of one’s voice.” >>> >>> Twitter’s reasoning conflates transparency and accountability with >>> privacy. We agree that when users decide to delete tweets they are engaging >>> in expression—but add that the public has a compelling interest in the >>> expression of public officials. Recognizing this public interest, courts >>> have long held that public officials do not receive the same treatment for >>> privacy. Further, when public officials use Twitter to amplify their >>> political views, they invite greater scrutiny of their expression. >>> Journalists and civil society utilize tools like Politwoops to understand >>> the views and commitments of the people these politicians represent—and the >>> politician or candidate’s own intents and perspective. In this case, the >>> citizen’s right to freedom of expression —which includes access to >>> information—outweighs the official’s right to a retroactive edit. >>> >>> In terms of process, this decision involved minimal dialogue with the >>> Open State Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. There was no opportunity >>> to appeal the decision, which impacted a widely-used, volunteer-run >>> service. The action carried out by Twitter was arbitrary and cuts against >>> the very principles of transparency that Politwoops was designed to >>> confront. >>> >>> We recognize that the API license gives Twitter discretion to enforce >>> its terms. However, Twitter should also take into account human rights when >>> it exercises that discretion—and particularly the right of people to access >>> to information where it serves the interest of public accountability and >>> transparency in a democratic society. There are times when what is legal >>> must be outweighed by what is right. >>> >>> *Recommendations* >>> >>> We note that Twitter has been a leader in transparency and free >>> expression since its founding. The platform has helped foster numerous >>> advances in journalism and in accountability. This makes the unilateral >>> decision by Twitter so troubling and off-course. Accordingly, we urge you >>> to: >>> >>> - immediately restore access for the Politwoops tool to the Twitter >>> API in every country around the world; >>> - convene stakeholders to develop a forward-looking API policy, or >>> other constructive solution, that allows civil society groups to >>> effectively promote accountability and transparency for the public >>> interest; >>> - make clear exceptions in the “Twitter Developer Agreement & >>> Policy” for information shared in the public interest, such as for >>> transparency or journalistic purposes; and >>> - participate in multistakeholder organizations which facilitate >>> meetings between civil society, investors, academics, and corporations on >>> decisions impacting human rights. >>> >>> Signed, >>> >>> Access >>> >>> Alternatif Bilisim (Turkey) >>> >>> American Civil Liberties Union >>> >>> Art 34-bis (Italy) >>> >>> Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) >>> >>> Bits of Freedom (Netherlands) >>> >>> Blueprint for Free Speech (Australia) >>> >>> Civio Foundation (Spain) >>> >>> Clean Air Action Group (Hungary) >>> >>> Derechos Digitales (Latin America) >>> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> >>> Electronic Frontiers Australia >>> >>> EDRi >>> >>> European Federation of Journalists >>> >>> Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France) >>> >>> Free Press >>> >>> Fundación Ciudadana Civio (Spain) >>> >>> GovTrack.us >>> >>> Hiperderecho (Peru) >>> >>> Human Rights Watch >>> >>> Iraqi Network for Social Media >>> >>> Jinbonet (Korea) >>> >>> Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (Netherlands) >>> >>> Open Knowledge Foundation (Australia) >>> >>> OpenMedia (Canada) >>> >>> Open State Foundation >>> >>> Paradigm Initiative (Nigeria) >>> >>> Pirate Party (Turkey) >>> >>> La Quadrature du Net (France) >>> >>> Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (Mexico) >>> >>> Sunlight Foundation (U.S.) >>> >>> Support for Information Technology Center (Egypt) >>> >>> Vrijschrift (Netherlands) >>> >>> Web Foundation >>> >>> *Learn more about the open letter: *Fortune >>> <http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/twitter-politwoops>, The Verge >>> <http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/4/9259939/coalition-demands-politwoops-api-restoration>, >>> Fast Company >>> <http://www.fastcompany.com/3050785/tech-forecast/human-rights-watch-transparency-groups-condemn-twitters-politwoops-ban>, >>> The Hill >>> <http://thehill.com/policy/technology/252762-digital-rights-groups-pressure-twitter-to-restore-politwoops>, >>> Business Insider >>> <http://www.businessinsider.com/rights-groups-open-letter-twitter-politwoops-ban-2015-9>, >>> Washington Post >>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/09/08/waiting-for-the-senate-on-cybersecurity-fcc-weighs-new-router-rules-could-politwoops-come-back/>, >>> TechCrunch >>> <http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/04/human-rights-groups-lambast-twitter-for-banning-service-that-tracked-politicians-deleted-tweets/>, >>> Dutch Radio 1 >>> <http://nos.nl/artikel/2055918-organisaties-vragen-twitter-in-brief-blokkade-op-politwoops-te-stoppen.html>, >>> Nu.nl >>> <http://www.nu.nl/tech/4119267/ngos-spreken-zich-twitter-blokkade-politwoops.html>, >>> The Register >>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/08/digi_rights_groups_take_aim_at_twitter_for_abandoning_the_principles_of_free_speech/>, >>> Tech Times >>> <http://www.techtimes.com/articles/82262/20150905/political-watchdog-banned-on-twitter-why-are-rights-groups-pushing-for-reversal.htm>, >>> CNET >>> <http://www.cnet.com/news/rights-groups-want-twitter-to-reverse-ban-on-political-watchdog-group/>, >>> Villamedia >>> <https://www.villamedia.nl/artikel/open-brief-voor-opheffen-blokkade-politwoops>, >>> Ansa >>> <http://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/tecnologia/internet_social/2015/09/08/attivisti-twitter-ripristini-politwoops_cb2b717a-a05b-4890-83f8-77540f0f388f.html>, >>> Arizona Wildcat >>> <http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2015/09/twitter-should-hold-politicians-accountable>, >>> Nieman Lab >>> <http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/advocacy-groups-call-on-twitter-to-restore-api-access-to-politiwoops/>, >>> Nos >>> <http://nos.nl/artikel/2055918-organisaties-vragen-twitter-in-brief-blokkade-op-politwoops-te-stoppen.html> >>> >>> -- >>> Deji Olukotun >>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> >>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo >>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>> 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>* >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> okfn-br mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br >>> >>> >> > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini * > *Vice President, International Policy* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>* > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-br mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-br mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br
