[hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Mark.
If that is the case, then perhaps we shouldn’t add this paragraph. I had
suggested it and still support that approach.

On Thursday, March 11, 2021, Mark Perkins <marknoumea=40yahoo.com@dmarc.
ietf.org> wrote:

> An annoying P.S.: just for the record I hope this paragraph does not
> encourage protocol developers to design protocols that can attribute
> certain action to an individual or lead to identification of people. I hope
> it doesn't legitimize attribution using protocols, with no accountability
> or checks and balances. Attribution features can be abused. I still don't
> think attribution should have been included at all, but that ship has
> sailed. So, I compromise.
>
> MP>> This is exactly my fear, excepting that I disagree that "that ship
> has sailed", and am still not sure that consensus has been reached on this
> issue...
>
> Mark P.
> Le 12/03/2021 à 05:34, farzaneh badii a écrit :
>
> Thank you Gurshabad,
>
> Yes this is fine, though I would have removed "may.. be" from the
> following sentence and replace it with "is".
> attribution on an individual level [may] *is not [*be] consistent with
> those particular human rights.  and would have removed individual from "i.e.
> mechanisms in protocols or architectures
> that are designed to make communications or artifacts attributable to a certain
> computer* or individual)*"
>
> I can't think of a text that captures Mallory's suggestion right now but I
> am not insistent on further changes to be applied. So don't want to hold
> you back.
> All good and thank you for your hard and excellent work.
>
>
> An annoying P.S.: just for the record I hope this paragraph does not
> encourage protocol developers to design protocols that can attribute
> certain action to an individual or lead to identification of people. I hope
> it doesn't legitimize attribution using protocols, with no accountability
> or checks and balances. Attribution features can be abused. I still don't
> think attribution should have been included at all, but that ship has
> sailed. So, I compromise.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Gurshabad Grover <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Farzaneh.
>>
>> I was referring to these suggestions (which came through well to my mail
>> at least), which I mostly incorporated. I realised from your chat
>> messages during hrpc today that you were highlighting the importance of
>> removing the reference to 'law enforcement agencies'. Taking that and
>> the recent suggestions into account, would this text be fine?
>>
>> """
>> Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted party's
>> right to the appropriate remedy without disproportionately impacting
>> other parties' human rights, especially their right to privacy?
>>
>> Explanation: Attribution (i.e. mechanisms in protocols or architectures
>> that are designed to make communications or artifacts attributable to a
>> certain computer or individual) may help victims of crimes in seeking
>> appropriate remedy.  However, attribution mechanisms may impede the
>> exercise of the right to privacy.  The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
>> Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom
>> of expression. [Kaye] Considering the adverse impact of attribution on
>> the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on
>> an individual level may not be consistent with those particular human
>> rights.
>> """
>>
>> On a finer point: I do not think that it is appropriate to remove 'the
>> right to remedy' from the 'Impacts' section, because it is precisely
>> what this section about (regardless of the final position it takes).
>>
>> -Gurshabad
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/21 11:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> > Seems like the suggestion I made did not come through because I
>> > strike-through
>> > Screen Shot 2021-03-11 at 12.44.34 PM.png
>> >  that didn't appear on the mailing list archive so I took a screenshot
>> > of the changes I suggested which is attached.
>> >
>> > I will rewrite it here.
>> > Farzaneh
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > hrpc mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing [e-mail]://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Garanti
> sans virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_140600057450132848_m_-6419674917296323565_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>


-- 
Farzaneh