After the initial consultation, a second meeting in Rio de Janeiro took place in December 2012 with the participation of the United Nations Special Rapporteur.
The global adoption necessitated a number of primarily superficial textual changes in the language of the document for the purposes of translation.
[11] The initial release followed a report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion in April 2013, which highlights the widespread practice of states surveying communications, stating that such surveillance severely undermines citizens' ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their other fundamental human rights.
"[13] The purpose of the principles was to provide civil society groups, states, the courts, legislative and regulatory bodies, industry and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws comply with International Human Rights.
[14] The concern was that key protections to privacy had been eroded away with technological advancements, therefore needed robust support in some areas to raise international human rights to the standards which had developed in the pre-digital age.
[20][21] To get the correct scope and purpose of application for the document, it is required to be read and interpreted as part of a larger framework rather than as individual principles.
The onus of establishing necessity should remain with the state[24] Any communications surveillance authorized by law must be appropriate for the legitimate aim it is fulfilling.
The person(s) in this position would have sufficient authority to access all potentially relevant information, to assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities, to evaluate whether the State has met its transparency obligations, and to make public determinations as to the lawfulness of those actions.
The document in this instance makes reference to the United Kingdom's Interception of Communications Commissioner as an example of such an independent oversight mechanism.
MLAT's should also be transparent, publicly available and subject to guarantees of procedural fairness Communications surveillance by third parties should be prohibited with sufficient penalties.
They claim that "In a world of ever more complex technology, it is increasingly unclear whether the distinction between "meta-data" and other information carries much weight.
"[29][30] The Center for Democracy and Technology released a report noting overlap between the Principles and a December 9, 2013 proposal by tech groups such as AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo!.