Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I don't mean to hijack a discussion of one document with another, but, 
as everyone has probably noticed there is no shortage of these things 
being published every day. Rather I'm sharing this other statement 
because it's relevant to the discussion and takes a different approach, 
more like what Paul Wouters said earlier.

Dozens of human rights groups call for more clarity on sanctions, 
including authorisatinos for comms/internet (as was with Syria, Cuba, 
Iran): 
https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/03/Civil-society-letter-to-Biden-Admin-re-Russia-sanctions-and-internet-access_10-March-2022-1.pdf

If you'd like to read more of a narrative on tech sanctions, there's 
this great piece by Wikimedia Foundation VP: 
https://techpolicy.press/the-invasion-of-ukraine-is-horrific-cutting-the-russian-people-off-from-the-internet-could-make-it-worse

As for my view, I'm with Stephen in that I don't think it's a 
particularly effective approach that the PCH letter takes and yet the 
political risks are tremendous. If we are to build the capacity in 
internet governance spaces like the IRTF/IETF-- and I would argue that 
is a far better goal than a new IG body-- it had better be on rock solid 
ground in terms of understanding efficacy and tradeoffs.

I think the statements that have been issued by internet governance 
bodies have so far come to the exact right conclusion. What would have 
made them better is more political analysis of Russia as a bad faith 
actor in these spaces, enumeration of bad behaviour that is unacceptable 
and already considered actionable offenses (like DDoS, spam, a rogue 
root operator, etc), and an offer of clear guidance to implementers and 
other tech companies or organisations who would look to those bodies for 
cues on what they should do (or not do) in these troubled times.

-Mallory

On 3/11/22 3:57 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think that this call for a global, multistakeholder process to block 
> access to Russian military and news websites would be of interest for 
> discussion here.
>
> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet-Sanctions.pdf 
>
>
> I don't disagree with the concept, I would actually implement such a 
> blocklist. I am worried that such a structured approach, and some 
> names in the list of signatories, could weaponize the global Internet 
> governance institutions and lead to the final fragmentation of the 
> Internet, but this is not in topic here.
>
> I am however puzzled by how this call could be compatible with the 
> pretty maximalistic approach to Internet censorship that this group 
> (or PEARG, in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-pearg-censorship) 
> has been taking. Possibly, if we applied draft-guidelines to this 
> proposal it would not pass the test.
>
> I would like to understand the line of reasoning under which an ISP 
> blocking access to child sexual abuse material or to phishing websites 
> is a censor, but if a soon-to-be-formed Internet institution decides 
> to block access to Russia Today globally as part of a war, then it's 
> all good.
>
> Was this discussed by the proponents? I'd guess so. Can anyone explain?
>
> -- 
>
> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> [e-mail]  
> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780