Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 03:58:58 +0100

Dear all,

During the IETF100 hackathon Stephane has done some really excellent
work on our surveillance draft. It is really a great leap from the
little placeholder that was -00. I you don't mind I will add it to the
agenda of our session.

Best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:52:57 -0800
From: [email-masked]
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>, Niels ten Oever
<[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Stephane Bortzmeyer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity
Revision:	01
Title:		Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols
Document date:	2017-11-12
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity-01

Abstract:
   Anonymity is less discussed in the IETF than for instance security
   [RFC3552] or privacy [RFC6973].  This can be attributed to the fact
   anonymity is a hard technical problem or that anonymizing user data
   is not of specific market interest.  It remains a fact that 'most
   internet users would like to be anonymous online at least
   occasionally' [Pew].

   This document aims to break down the different meanings and
   implications of anonymity on a mediated computer network.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 04:04:21 +0100

Sorry, that should have been 'anonymity', not 'surveillance'-draft.

s/surveillance/anonymity

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

On 11/12/2017 03:58 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:51:10 +0800

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 03:58:58AM +0100,
 Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 127 lines which said:

> It is really a great leap from the little placeholder that was
> -00. I you don't mind I will add it to the agenda of our session.

You may also be interested by draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity (LISP EID
have today the semantic of stable IP addresses, making them not
privacy-friendly). It seems to me close from RFC 4941 (more
short-lived pseudonyms than real anonymity, but this is a subject of
discussion, see the terminology section).

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:23:12 +0800

> -00. I you don't mind I will add it to the agenda of our session.

"We're anonymizing the data, sacrificing on the side of privacy." (in
an article about the new Quad9 service,
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/new-quad9-dns-service-blocks-malicious-domains-for-everyone/>)

So, privacy is a sacrifice?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:41:56 +0800

> So, privacy is a sacrifice?

They're trading off the ability of CDNs to make good routing
decision with protecting user privacy, sacrificing the former.
I think it's reasonable to point out that providing additional
user privacy has some costs associated with it.  (And fwiw I
think they made the right choice).

Melinda