Re: [hrpc] review drafts with guidelines on human rights considerations

["Giovane C. M. Moura" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry Niels, I only had a chance to look at this now.

Please find my response inline.

> Not all questions are applicable to all protocols, but do you think none
> of the questions were relevant for you?

I went through all of questions now and here is my feedback.

First, I found it to be a good exercise that, most of all, helped me to
think it through our protocol design, helping me to re-evaluate it,
working as a eye opener to some properties.

As I experienced on a previous protocols and ethics implications
exercise[1], engineers unintentionally put their "values" (in
value-sensitive design terminology) in our protocols as if they were
just a given. Your draft help me to question those.

Since our draft is about intra-networking signaling[2], some questions
were not directly relevant. I enumerate them here. While I think all the
questions are important and have a different role, they may not apply to
all drafts in a same way. So I classified them with regards our own
draft only:

   * Relevant: 5.3.2.1.(1,2,3,4,6,7,8) , 14 (it's not dependable since
it is fall-back opportunistic),16,17,19,

   * More less relevant: 12 (there was a heated discussion on the
language issue in Buenos Aires, and if I am not mistaken, one of the
conclusions was that (i) is very hard to have it in protocol design and
(ii) maybe we should start at the application layer first, since it  is
the layer that directly interact with the users) , 15 (we employ fields
and data specified by another draft by other authors)

   * Not relevant: 5 (since its machine to machine signaling), 9 10
11,13, 18, (since it does not handle end-user data),20 (same reasons),

>>> 	- Changes you will make to your draft
>>> 	- Perhaps even a considerations paragraph that could be added to your
>>> draft.

I'll have to talk to my co-authors first (I am the last author on the
draft), but one easy change is to discuss the security considerations in
the light of human rights implications.


Other comments: on 5.3.2.1.9, first sentence " .. especially section
6.1.1 ?" . The link to 6.1.1. points to the same draft, but it should be
to RFC6973 I believe.

[1] http://doc.utwente.nl/87095/
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-dots-ipv6-signal-option-00


Thanks,

/giovane

>> Therefore, it does not carry any metadata/data related to human
>> communication. If it is not human communication related, does it imply
>> that it does not violate human rights? I am not so positive on that
>> either...
>>
> 
> I think infrastructure and deeper layer protocol play a large role in
> inhibiting or stimulating an enabeling envrionment for human rights.
> 
> If this is not clearly communicated in the draft, we should change that.
> 
> 
>> For example: BGP is also machine to machine but if *used* poorly, can
>> and has been used in censorship cases (see Pakistan Youtube case[3]).
>>
> 
> And BGPSEC, etc, etc. Completely agree.
> 
>> Could you please share your thoughts on this  so I can carry on here
>> with the analysis?
>>
> 
> Hope this helps. Also feel free to have this conversation on the list, I
> think we (and others) can learn a lot from it.
> 
> Thanks so much for doing this.
> 
> Niels
> 
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> /giovane
>>
>>
>> [1] http://doc.utwente.nl/87095/
>>
>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-ipv6-dots-signal-option-00
>>
>> [3]
>> http://www.cnet.com/news/how-pakistan-knocked-youtube-offline-and-how-to-make-sure-it-never-happens-again/
>>
>>> I hope this e-mail finds you well. As discussed in Berlin, Corinne and I
>>> worked hard to addressed all brought up issues in the
>>> hrpc-research-draft. You mentioned you would be interested in reviewing
>>> a draft your currently working on in the light of the guidelines for
>>> human rights considerations.
>>>
>>> I would like to kindly ask you to:
>>>
>>> 1. Take your draft
>>>
>>> 2. Read through the guidelines here:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-02#section-5.3.2
>>>
>>> 3. Make notes about your findings, especially relating the following points:
>>> 	- Relevance for your draft
>>> 	- Changes you will make to your draft
>>> 	- Perhaps even a considerations paragraph that could be added to your
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> 4. Perhaps write a short evaluation paragraph in which you answer the
>>> following questions:
>>> 	- Was this a useful exercise
>>> 	- What can be improved?
>>> 		- Examples
>>> 		- Number of questions
>>> 		- Granularity of questions
>>> 		- Did going through the questionnaire feel like 'time well spent'?
>>> 	
>>> All your thoughts are very welcome.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> PS If you preper to talk about this rather than do a write up, am also
>>> more than happy to schedule a call with you.
>>>
>>>
>