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

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

So since John has not criticized me yet over the use of the word outrageous
I hold back apologizing for using it, seems like he doesn't get offended
quickly which I am thankful for. If the community wants me to apologize for
the usage of this outrageous word, please let me know so that I send in my
apology.

Explanation: John's suggestions (including it as is) will have (in my
opinion)many negative consequences.  it is not clear what we mean by
"harm".is it a cybersecurity issue? Or is it physical harm on others?   it
is not clear what is meant by "attribution". Is it about identification of
a person? A network?   what do we mean by legal remedy and access to legal
remedy? The document John points to about attribution (the BCP) has been
criticized before.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersdotter-intarea-update-to-rfc6302-00 so
there are controversies surrounding this issue, and we have not discussed
whether what John is arguing is a human right issue that we should consider
in HRPC. And usage of the term "public safety" (which is not in John's
suggested text but in RFC 6302) is ambiguous. By public safety, do we mean
law enforcement queries? what sort of queries? fighting with cybercrime? or
street crime? consumer protection?

 This is actually an interesting case to look at and see how RFC 6302 been
implemented and how it has helped "public safety" queries. Maybe it will
lead us to revisit RFC 6302 :)






Farzaneh


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:06 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 1:48 PM, farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Frankly, John, what you are suggesting is outrageous.
>
>
> I’m having trouble seeing what John has said that’s outrageous.   Rather
> than simply saying it’s outrageous and hoping that we will see what you
> mean, could you please tell us what you think he has said that is
> outrageous, and what about it is outrageous?   I say “think he has said”
> because it’s also possible that there is a misunderstanding here, and
> that’s why I’m not seeing it.
>
>
>