Da Cibersegurança à Ciberguerra - o desenvolvimento de políticas de vigilância no Brasil

Estudo que analisa o aparato de vigilância do Estado brasileiro e as mudanças desencadeadas no setor após as revelações de Edward Snowden e no contexto da realização de megaeventos.

David Kaye report on encryption and anonymity

May 28, 2015

“States should not restrict encryption and anonymity,” Kaye writes. He notes that “blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate,” a reference to standards for human rights law as articulated in the 13 International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. The 13 Principles are “compelling demonstrations of the law that should apply in the context of the digital age,” observes Kaye.

European Commission for Democracy Through Law

April, 7 2015 - Update of the 2007 Report on the Democratic Oversight of the Security Services and Report on the Democrative Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies.

59. Bearing these points in mind, it is undoubtedly appropriate to have a proper discussion regarding oversight of strategic surveillance, and such discussions have been occurring in a number of states. The issue became particularly topical as a result of detailed allegations made by a former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, in June 2013. Fears were expressed as a result of these allegations that the activities of the NSA in particular, but also the equivalent signals intelligence agencies in other states, including several Council of Europe states, involved “mass surveillance”. The concern caused by these allegations about NSA capabilities and practices was exacerbated by the fact that US companies dominate the internet, and the much internet traffic is routed through the internet “backbone” in the US. It led inter alia to the UN General Assembly adopting a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age[15] an inquiry in the Liberty committee of the European Parliament,[16] and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,[17] to proposals made by service providers[18] and an NGO coalition19 for global regulatory principles.


Privacy in 2015: timing is everything - New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner blog

­February, 10 2015

A good example was the initiative to develop the 13 Principles on Communications Surveillance. This responded to concerns at the global level about the lack of clarity for policy makers, product developers, platform providers, and legal experts about what protection for privacy looks like for new developments such as cloud storage, big data, and communications surveillance.

Surveillance and Its Discontents

June 12, 2014 - A Conversation Across Cyberspace with Edward Snowden and John Perry Barlow

“What we really need to think about is what we want to allow in the rules of play to be in society not just for governments but for everyone. There is an organization of academics and specialists, experts on surveillance policies and human rights around the world who have been working extensively on this and last year they proposed something called the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. It's called the Thirteen Principles and basically it boils down to any information that's collected and used has to be used for purposes that are necessary and proportionate to the sort of case that we're encountering.” Edward Snowden

Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age A/HRC/27/37

­September 2014 - At the Human Rights Council’s twenty ­seventh session. Unlike certain other provisions of the Covenant, article 17 does not include an explicit limitations clause. Guidance on the meaning of the qualifying words “arbitrary or unlawful” nonetheless can be drawn from the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;1 the practice of the Human Rights Committee as reflected in its general comments, including Nos. 16, 27, 29, 34, and 31, findings on individual communications2 and concluding observations;3 regional and national case law;4 and the views of independent experts.5 In its general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation on States parties to the Covenant, for example, the Human Rights Committee provides that States parties must refrain from violation of the rights recognized by the Covenant, and that “any restrictions on any of [those] rights must be permissible under the relevant provisions of the Covenant. Where such restrictions are made, States must demonstrate their necessity and only take such measures as are proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure continuous and effective protection of Covenant rights.”6 The Committee further underscored that “in no case may the restrictions be applied or invoked in a manner that would impair the essence of a Covenant right.”

  • 1. See E/CN.4/1985/4, annex.
  • 2. For example, communication No. 903/1999, 2004, Van Hulst v. The Netherlands.
  • 3. CCPR /C/USA/CO/4.
  • 4. For example, European Court of Human Rights, Uzun v. Germany, 2 September 2010, and Weber and Soravia v. Germany, para. 4; and Inter­American Court of Human Rights, Escher v. Brazil, Judgment, 20 November 2009.
  • 5. See A/HRC/13/37 and A/HRC/23/40. See also I nternational Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, available from
  • 6. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para. 6.

European Parliament Report

­February 21, 2014 - On the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (2013/2188(INI))

17. Commends the current discussions, inquiries and reviews concerning the subject of this inquiry in several parts of the world, including through the support of civil society; points to the Global Government Surveillance Reform signed up to by the world's leading technology companies calling for sweeping changes to national surveillance laws, including an international ban on bulk collection of data, to help preserve the public's trust in the internet and in their businesses; points to the calls made by hundreds of leading academics,41 civil society organisations42 and 562 international authors, including five Nobel laureates, for an end to mass surveillance; notes with great interest the recommendations published recently by the US President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Report on the Telephone Records Program Conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and on the Operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court43; strongly urges governments to take these calls and recommendations fully into account and to overhaul their national frameworks for their intelligence services in order to implement appropriate safeguards and oversight;

The feasibility of transatlantic privacy­-protective standards for surveillance

September 1, 2014 - Ian Brown, in the International Journal of Law and Information Technology

Additionally, a joint set of principles endorsed by over 200 NGOs argues:

Where States seek assistance for law enforcement purposes, the principle of dual criminality should be applied. States may not use mutual legal assistance processes and foreign requests for protected information to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance. Mutual legal assistance processes and other agreements should be clearly documented, publicly available, and subject to guarantees of procedural fairness.27

  • 27. I​nternational Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance,​10 July 2013 <h​ttps://>​accessed 6 August 2014.

What’s wrong with mass surveillance of travel metadata?

­February, 24 2014

We think the same International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance should be applied to travel surveillance and travel metadata collection.

Piden desde México fin de la vigilancia masiva

June 6, 2014

A través de la divulgación de 13 Principios Internacionales sobre la Aplicación de los Derechos Humanos a la Vigilancia de las Comunicaciones, los activistas digitales buscan que la sociedad mexicana se sume al llamado para preservar las libertades y derechos fundamentales de los individuos en la era digital.