Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)

farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DDA9120159 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RRb51Iober3j for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF84D12016F for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id n11so17298987qtl.5 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mcHSpDkq3b2uKEe3XfPsCrMOftPo5uOuPqzLxJ2rkHM=; b=j7ArSO82/Q7cCnIInSE6L2r14aJFj2unwgLZJEcll3umkpgY/C8OMLPwR4Wu3W5eiV f44zWfNVcjCWTj5CieKb+sxte0NeFOAUt6n0wpy8D2dHrHNVGXP943+ovtDh/H/4hJP+ 5dHhF33UH0l2GhAtCv+mPaduBTUBtF0pT12efMkvBqIoWkXBKL4BItgRaWryEc5ylnij xIk9c2gRCgRfjjJv6DlhViNJXNMLWsTxPDoZHdjPSrwFEHcHbpymGYpKqmQ4Zafz2XiI UlwUmE1Jdt+Ju8nsptoQuV4c15te8fQLF1LBlWqulHx8sm8v4VoNvaf3s8a4fCxyDoTx 8OGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mcHSpDkq3b2uKEe3XfPsCrMOftPo5uOuPqzLxJ2rkHM=; b=i1RqWuHPsYGpjw43GG0SD228Q1get0iBwnD7G49gvWcifJnqPoAHnhnBtdTJ7M86Gb r4S0uNYLMpyo5rlDEuffH2AzA+BSK7IG7vi/KIQwhwMIdz9yW0a8uJ2IWg0sw4vpXKFq uh8Jb6Hnl41GGuShOi+puxrby6iiLaBeBvfy+6uagdyJ1Ha0sGWfqdXo0zyveAZ1R2Fv FakCesrxQUy+4JPN8OTALcCiLRurVZkVpw0ftt5rGAwIocwUTmovjYl6a3ejBmRwjOvB e/HFjN+o2yHm9JXiwZrPFaEUQ7du42TTW4e1NI1urXUYa72FS87+bd/WK42csItZWgrR WqZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUV9ReKpQrGd/mvT4hbjb2CZ39jOzQd+xWR2GI0IqVWy1BNrgRD UybRB6XJ0mH/K95XZiSz/pbp7WibByw170FuwpQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7NnAiP7KTCQ72F8+1B81SoG3PvEFEn6KiMl+gsfvy2Mm0shNxNks19u/NFgPxB9eUFo2EFmmOJrl38p2370Y=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:24b8:: with SMTP id s53mr2985751qts.276.1560361755718; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155989623088.20255.12181969220178709616@ietfa.amsl.com> <C550D5BC-8062-4C58-8CEC-B82B2798C1D9@istaff.org> <71b7350e-cb75-aba1-1717-50d1069531b1@nielstenoever.net> <B8D9823F-2D42-42DF-AE8A-6E67532DA4D1@istaff.org> <d66b60ab-3aaa-d45d-3f47-d2c00f89119d@article19.org> <1ECD44BA-4BB1-47FD-87B5-E35A3B6DDCB6@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <1ECD44BA-4BB1-47FD-87B5-E35A3B6DDCB6@istaff.org>
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:48:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvA5BdbSJNkGADChmtmjHzww0Q5RcvXwwOC4rO7YT7DiVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: Amelia Andersdotter <amelia@article19.org>, hrpc@irtf.org, Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002bb716058b2408d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/N3m1s8sC7g4YahY-dfyrDIZ2d7Y>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:49:26 -0000

Frankly, John, what you are suggesting is outrageous.

You don't have to always attribute the wrongdoing to a "person" or even a
"location" to be able to establish jurisdiction and have access to a legal
remedy and even preserve security. What you are suggesting will do more
harm than good for human rights.


Farzaneh


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 7:06 AM John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:

> On 12 Jun 2019, at 6:13 AM, Amelia Andersdotter <amelia@article19.org>
> wrote:
> > ...
> > Normally, human rights are obligations on governments and duties on
> > companies to respect individuals.
>
> You use the term “normally”, where perhaps you meant “typically”?  All
> human rights are normal, but I concur that the typical considerations
> regarding human rights implementation involve preventing otherwise
> impacting government or business activity.
>
> > The attribution problem, however,
> > seems to me to arise when governments or companies find that individuals
> > have not respected their rights, or when individuals have not respected
> > other individuals.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Because the attribution problem in this sense occurs
> > in a "reverse setting" (individual -> individual or individual ->
> > government/company settings rather than government/company -> individual
> > settings), I'd be cautious to include it in RFC8280.
>
> I don’t following how the atypical nature of the "legal remedy” human
> right makes it any less important than other human rights or warrants its
> exclusion from aspects that need to be considered by protocol/architecture
> designers.  In fact, the less obvious relationship between attribution and
> ability to support the legal remedy human right would argue that it’s
> likely more important that it be included, less it be readily overlooked by
> designers when striving to strike an appropriate balance in these areas.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> p.s. Disclaimer:  my views alone - this message composed of 100% recycled
> electrons.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>