[85attendees] Media without censorship - attend side meeting ?

[Johan Pouwelse <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
Anyone interested in attending a side meeting, to be organised in Atlanta?
Please reply with a "+1", we need sufficient replies or this planned event
will be cancelled.

Topic: privacy enhancing technology, focused on smartphones and
microblogging
Title: "Media without censorship"
Date: 20:30 Thursday, November 8, 2012 (after Bits&Bytes goes empty)
(tentative, pending room availability etc)
Goal: seek feedback, measure level of interest and see if a future BoF is
realistic

The IETF Journal has just published a 2-page description of this
initiative:
http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censorship-free-internet

18-page writeup of motivation, overview&scenarios:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios/?include_text=1

There was a prior Bar BoF on this topic held last August in Vancouver.
We had some press attention, like:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FIETF-diskutiert-Netz-Standards-gegen-Zensur-1660244.html
Martin Stiemerling was even quotes there as saying this was "Very
interesting" and very "constructive" :-)

Numerous groups work on this topic, little interaction exists,
documentation and common terminology is lacking.
If people are interested I would like to briefly demo the work of
others and our own running code in this proposed gathering.

Given the luxurious staffing of my university research team we now
have running code of several building blocks for privacy enhancement.
This allows discussion about desired architecture and approaches based
on real-world prototyping experience.
On Android market (
https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=TUDelft:+Delft+University+of+Technology
):
- Transfer a video file between two Android phones, *without* the
receiver having any special app installed.
Uses NFC initiation of data transfer and Bluetooth handover
(enabled by default on V4.1 Android).
(scenario 3 building block:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-02#section-4.3
)
- Live streaming with an Android app, stream phone camera feed to
other phones using IETF PPSP WG draft peer protocol, uses no central
server, pure P2P
(scenario 1 building block:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-02#section-4.1
)
- Record a video on a smartphone and includes one-click playable URL
in a Twitter.com message, without requirement of any central server
Record a video from app, create hash check, seed content from
phone (PPSP compliant on-demand streaming)
(scenario 1 building block)
- Plus we now have M2Crypto experience on Android

Below are the meeting notes from the Last Aug Vancouver meet.

Looking forward to any feedback you might have on this or even
attending this suggested meeting.

Greetings from Holland, Johan.

######## side meeting notes by Johan Pouwelse ########
Participants present at bar BoF: 25+
People indicating willingness to participate, but had agenda conflicts: 5+

Overall there was a lively discussion going on for over an hour. The
diverse audience represented a wide range of backgrounds and
expertise. From security to networking, students to professors and
area director to decades-long IETF participants.

Numerous attendants had read the initial discussion I-D document.
Numerous questions and lack of clarity was ventilated. First,
essential need for improvement is making the implied threat models
explicit. It was unclear what the capability are of the adversaries.
The context and model of information transport was not clear.
A discussion emerged about the security of the physical layer. Nothing
can be accomplished if trust is absent even in the physical layer. A
common understanding was that news is created in a region without
freedom and then needs to travel to the outside world. No term was
defined during the discussion, for clarity, we will refer to this
simplistically as the freedom/non-freedom border. Different transport
protocols, dynamics and different solutions are needed on the two
sides of this border.

A second item was that the use cases (scenarios) need to be more
clearly defined. Specifying exactly what problem is to be solved.
Third, it was unclear why existing technology was not sufficient to
meet the described demands. The example proposed was the tor onion
network in combination with XMPP or the orbot smartphone app. After
much discussion the conclusion was that existing technologies, such as
tor facilitate protected point-to-point communication. However,
possible desired use cases focus more on current Twitter-like social
media practices, best typified as a "global conversation".
Furthermore, current social media revolves around video-rich,
real-time interaction with groups, hashtag-based discovery and social
networking. All of these aspects are not offered or are incompatible
with current-generation of privacy enhancing technology. A discussion
emerged on reputation models in news reporting and information flows.
In the current microblogging age, does the number of real-person
followers be seen as your reputation. The question publicly posed was
roughly: do several news sources of moderate reputation which report
the same news story yield together a different reputation score

At this point in the discussion, a summary was given (Lucy?)
introducing the "transmorf" principle. The identities used in Twitter
are highly identifiable labels, with a certain trust level. This hard
identity with millions of followers is a stark contrasts with
anonymity. It was concluded that lacking in current anti-censorship
technology is the ability to first have stealth encrypted transport of
news, cross the freedom/non-freedom border and then transmorf this
news into a public accessible form with a highly identifiable label.
This relates closely to 2nd stage verification of news.
Discussion arose around the lack of motivation for the smartphone app
focus in the scenario I-D. The requirements and solution space need to
be separated.
It was noted that the strong point of the IETF lies in describing
architectures and protocols.
Finally, a first stab needs to be done at defining various components.
What are the major chunks of functionality that need to be addressed.
Supporting area director Martin Stiemerling asked who would be willing
to help write documents. Several people responded. Next step was
forming a mailinglist. Given the nature of this problem, it was
discussed if either EITF or IRTF where appropriate for this activity.

Four documents to move forward:
Use cases and threat model
System components, definitions and system architecture
Current technology and gap
Detailed system design and protocol specification

Scenario: no control points, everything is capture proof.

########Notes by Ronald In 't Velt#######

Q: why isn't TOR + XMPP sufficient for what you want?

Q (R. Bush): What is the threat model?

Martin: ultimately, personal judgement

Kevin Fall: intermixing problems and solutions

use cases

Kevin Fall: responded because DTN was mentioned

?: multiple distribution modalities

separate into 2 problems: 1. transport 2. content

send out anonymously, identified as highly reliable and redistributed

KF: dynamic provenance

distributed reputation systems

multiple not-that-reliable sources adding up

Martin: too big for IETF? IRTF group?

scenarios, threat model, architecture, gap analysis

Lucy: related work going on in W3C