Subject: [hrpc] Reminder HRPC RG meeting today

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 20:29:16 +0200

at 17:40 Buenos Aires time:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Human+Rights+Protocol+Considerations+Reseach+Group+at+IRTF&iso=20160404T1740&p1=51&ah=2

Agenda
https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/95/agenda-95-hrpc.html

Meetecho
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf95/hrpc

Jabber
xmpp:[email-masked]?join

Minutes and notes
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-95-hrpc

Audio stream
http://ietf95streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf951.m3u

Slides
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-hrpc-0.pdf

Intro website
https://hrpc.io

Mailinglist
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

Github
https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-HRPC

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:20:10 +0100

Dear all,

We hope you have all recovered from what was an exciting IETF95 meeting in
Buenos Aires.

We were very happy with all the comments and edits to our drafts that we
received.

Over the next weeks we will be working through them and presenting you with
an updated doc.

In the meantime - here is the latest blog post about the IETF95 meeting:

https://hrpc.io/ietf-95-meets-in-buenos-aires-a-week-of-firsts/

Best,

Corinne

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]

-- 

'The management of normality is hard work'

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:46:08 +0200

Hi Corinne and all,

Am 18.04.2016 um 15:20 schrieb Corinne Cath:
> We hope you have all recovered from what was an exciting IETF95 meeting
> in Buenos Aires.
> 
> Over the next weeks we will be working through them and presenting you
> with an updated doc.

As I have already commented at the mic, I'll try to send you further
comments after reviewing the whole document. Right now I'll
limit my comments to what I mentioned in the meeting: the way the
current text in draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-00 is written
one gets the impression that we have a counterposition to
the hrpc approach, which isn't true.

  "Our position is that hard-coding human
   rights into protocols in addition to being undesirable is also
   impossible, because each situation is dependent on its context.  It
   is however important to make consicious design decisions that take
   into account the human rights protocol considerations guidelines
   developed below.  This will ensure that the impact protocols can have
   on human rights is clear and explicit, both for developers and for
   users.  In addition, it ensures that the impact of specific protocol
   on human rights is carefully considered and that concrete design
   decisions are documented in the protocol."

Our main point was that one has to carefully analyze impact of protocol
design choices on human rights (and possibly other values) (*).
So IMHO we have got a similar approach starting with the second cited
sentence. For the first statement:
"hard-coding human rights into protocols in addition to being
undesirable is also impossible, because each situation is dependent on
its context."
I expressed my concerns with this statement in the meeting:
in general, protocols may always affect human rights or derived values
to some extent. So even if one tries to not explicitly "hard-code" (or
enforce) human rights into protocols, design choices may implicitly
have an impact on them.

Excluding "hard-coding" human rights into protocols (or saying it is
generally undesirable) is probably also not advisable. For example if
you design protocols like APIP or Hornet to increase privacy and freedom
of speech and assembly, is that already hard-coding human rights? Our
main point was that one needs to carefully think about advantages and
disadvantages of technical solutions with respect to their effects on
human rights.
Sometimes less technically embedded solutions are better in practice,
because the system stays more flexible and avoids misbehavior in
unforeseen contexts. But the IETF is currently working on improving
privacy in protocols and IMHO this is desirable from a human rights
perspective. However, one needs to be clear about other potential
impacts of such approaches as well. Therefore, I think it will be
part of the research if we come up later with an insight that
one should actually refrain from explicitly embedding human rights
into protocols, but right now such a conclusion is premature IMHO.

Regards,
 Roland

(*) I'll send a pointer to our ACM CCR editorial note on "Values and
Networks – Steps Toward Exploring their Relationships" as soon as it is
available.

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:50:00 +0100

Dear Roland,

Thank you for this response! We are currently working on reviewing the
draft and taking in the comments we received at IETF95 and on the list.

I will make sure that the comments you made in this email will be
accurately reflected in the new draft, and we look forward to any
additional comments you might have on the draft as a whole.

Best,

Corinne

--