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

[Nthabiseng Pule <[e-mail]>]

+ 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