Re: [hrpc] Fwd: [] New paper from IGP on Standards and Human Rights

[Corinne Cath <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I also read this paper and have some qualms with the bits that Stephen
didn’t speak to, i.e. the 3 part framework.

I think some of the work misreads STS approaches to protocol politics and
flattens the argument made by scholars who focus on the inherent power
dynamics of standardization.

I also would have liked to see a more elaborate methods section, such that
it becomes clear how the historic construction was done and why the authors
decided to do this seemingly without in-depth interviews with the
individuals involved.

Lastly, it’s good to note that this paper has not been peer reviewed yet.
Going through that process would, as with I-Ds, would probably help
straighten out some of the folds identified on this thread.

Kind regards,

Corinne

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 02:13, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 01/12/2020 19:37, avri doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Possibly interesting to some.
>
> Had a read. I think it's wrong as to the motivations
> for TLS1.3 - Snowdonia was IMO only one of those, we
> had had a long series of documented attacks on TLS
> so TLS1.3 probably would've happened anyway because
> of those and the potential RTT improvements. It also
> ignores the role of academic cryptographers in the
> process of developing TLS1.3 - their proofs and
> formal methods and the tools they had for producing
> those lead to some of the design choices rather than
> any political anything.
>
> There's also a few minor factual errors in the dramatis
> personnae, and some omissions of relevant players.
> I suspect those may have been driven by the tools that
> we have available for re-constructing working group
> histories post-facto, as talking to people involved in
> the process should have avoided those. The errors
> really are minor and of no real impact, but if they
> are down to the methodology used by the authors, but
> not described, that's a bit more of interest.
>
> I've no opinion as to whether the history backs any
> of the three theoretical explanatory frameworks or
> not, but the paper's interesting as an example of a
> reasonable but imperfect reconstruction of what
> happened.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >
> > IGP releases a new research paper on the politics of the new Transport
> > Layer Security standard: Standardizing Security: Surveillance, Human
> > Rights, and TLS 1.3.
> >
> >
> >
> > Standardizing Security develops a conceptual framework for understanding
> > the relationship between technical standards and political/social
> > effects. We identify three distinct ways of understanding this
> > relationship: 1) by examining the interest groups who shaped the
> > standard, which we call the Political Economy of Standardization (PES);
> > 2) by focusing on the Societal Effects of Standards (SES) which refers
> > to cumulative effects of adoption and implementation decisions over
> > time; and 3) the idea that politics and rights are embedded in the
> > standard; i.e., that Protocols Have Politics (PHP). We then perform a
> > detailed analysis of the controversies around the design, adoption and
> > implementation of TLS 1.3.
> >
> >
> >
> > We find that the PHP approach had limited explanatory value compared to
> > the PES and SES approaches. TLS 1.3 does in fact strengthen privacy –
> > and technical efficiency – if adopted and implemented as intended. But
> > the design of TLS 1.3’s stronger confidentiality measures met with
> > resistance from corporate network operators who wanted more visibility
> > into their internal networks and some governmental interests, leading to
> > the development of an alternate standard by ETSI. There are also
> > technical measures that can be deployed to undermine perfect forward
> > secrecy. Additionally, authoritarian governments are now taking measures
> > to block use of the new protocol. TLS 1.3 was an improvement, but its
> > effects were limited.
> >
> >
> >
> > By conveying the idea that political, economic and social effects can be
> > hard coded into protocol designs, the protocols-have-politics view
> > short-circuits careful analysis of the way standards contribute to
> > governance. It also drastically overstates the role of protocol design
> > in internet governance. Rights advocates and internet governance
> > participants need to have more realistic ideas about what measures
> > advance human rights on the internet.
> >
> >
> >
> > Download the paper here:
> >
> https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/StandardizingSecurity-TLS.pdf
> > <
> https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/StandardizingSecurity-TLS.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton L Mueller
> >
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> > School of Public Policy
> >
> > IGP_logo_gold block
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hrpc mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>
-- 
Corinne Cath - Speth
Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute

Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
Email: [e-mail] & [e-mail]
Twitter: @C_CS