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

[Amelia Andersdotter <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc


-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme
Chair, RCM TIG, IEEE 802.11

ARTICLE19
www.article19.org

PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55