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

On 6/12/19 12:13 PM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> On 2019-06-11 17:43, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> A very interesting question…  I was not so much advocating for a
>> particular set of norms regarding attribution, but simply some
>> recognition that protocol/architecture design decisions can impact the
>> ability to attribute communications and thus can hinder exercise of
>> rights (such as legal remedy) when attribution is necessary for
>> exercise of same. 
>>
> The conflict is, I guess, even weedier. Anonymity is a human right, and
> can be crucial for freedom of expression, whistleblowing or criticism.
> So we might have to do a deeper dive into the attribution vs anonymity.
> 

I don't think anonymity is a human right in itself; the UDHR and ICCPR do not address it, but anonymity can be an important precondition for people to exercise their freedom of expression. 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/CallForSubmission.aspx

> Normally, human rights are obligations on governments and duties on
> companies to respect individuals. 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. 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.
> 

This is why I thought it might make sense to institute attribution vis a vis corporate actors, which could subsequently be the vocal point for legal action. This could work as: accountability for the powerful, and protection for the individual.

Happy to discuss!

Best,

Niels

> best regards,
> 
> Amelia
> 
> 
>> While I think that much more dialogue would be necessary to understand
>> if there is indeed an widely-accepted set of norm that should be used
>> for protocol assessment in this area, your point regarding legal
>> entity attribution vs natural persons is well taken, and might be
>> raised in the mind of a potential protocol designer (or reviewer) by
>> the addition of an additional question, as follows:
>>
>>       Question(s): Does your protocol/architecture prevent attribution
>>     of those parties 
>>       involved in communication, and can the protocol readily be used
>>     for communication
>>       which harm the security of recipient?  What, if any, mechanisms
>>     within the protocol 
>>       or architecture are provided for a recipient of communications
>>     to obtain redress
>>       from communication which causes harm?  If no such mechanisms
>>     available, does 
>>       the protocol/architecture provide sufficient information
>>     attributing the source of 
>>       communication to facilitate a recipient exercising their right
>>     to legal remedy? 
>>      /*If attribution to a natural person is not available, does the
>>     protocol/architecture*/
>>     /*  provide any mechanisms*//* for *//*obtaining contact
>>     information for a legal entity*/*/ /*
>>     */  responsible /**/(or /**/representing /**/those responsible)
>>     for the /*/*communication?*/
>>
>>
>> This raises the very pragmatic point that attribution to natural
>> persons is not necessarily a 
>> desirable outcome, but that some consideration of alternative
>> mechanisms for attribution 
>> may still facilitate exercise of the "legal remedy" human right.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> /John
>>
>> p.s. (Disclaimer: my views alone - no one else is foolish enough to
>> claim them! ;-) 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
DATACTIVE Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3