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

[Jon Hudson <[e-mail]>]

++1

On Nov 3, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Nthabiseng Pule <[e-mail]> wrote:

> + 1
> 
> 
> 
> Nthabiseng Pule
> 
> [phone]
> 
> 
> On 02 Nov 2012, at 6:55 PM, Johan Pouwelse <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 85attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/85attendees
> _______________________________________________
> 85attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/85attendees