Re: [hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Gurshabad,

Yes this is fine, though I would have removed "may.. be" from the following
sentence and replace it with "is".
attribution on an individual level [may] *is not [*be] consistent with
those particular human rights.  and would have removed individual from "i.e.
mechanisms in protocols or architectures
that are designed to make communications or artifacts attributable to a certain
computer* or individual)*"

I can't think of a text that captures Mallory's suggestion right now but I
am not insistent on further changes to be applied. So don't want to hold
you back.
All good and thank you for your hard and excellent work.


An annoying P.S.: just for the record I hope this paragraph does not
encourage protocol developers to design protocols that can attribute
certain action to an individual or lead to identification of people. I hope
it doesn't legitimize attribution using protocols, with no accountability
or checks and balances. Attribution features can be abused. I still don't
think attribution should have been included at all, but that ship has
sailed. So, I compromise.



Farzaneh


On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Gurshabad Grover <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks, Farzaneh.
>
> I was referring to these suggestions (which came through well to my mail
> at least), which I mostly incorporated. I realised from your chat
> messages during hrpc today that you were highlighting the importance of
> removing the reference to 'law enforcement agencies'. Taking that and
> the recent suggestions into account, would this text be fine?
>
> """
> Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted party's
> right to the appropriate remedy without disproportionately impacting
> other parties' human rights, especially their right to privacy?
>
> Explanation: Attribution (i.e. mechanisms in protocols or architectures
> that are designed to make communications or artifacts attributable to a
> certain computer or individual) may help victims of crimes in seeking
> appropriate remedy.  However, attribution mechanisms may impede the
> exercise of the right to privacy.  The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
> Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom
> of expression. [Kaye] Considering the adverse impact of attribution on
> the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on
> an individual level may not be consistent with those particular human
> rights.
> """
>
> On a finer point: I do not think that it is appropriate to remove 'the
> right to remedy' from the 'Impacts' section, because it is precisely
> what this section about (regardless of the final position it takes).
>
> -Gurshabad
>
>
> On 3/11/21 11:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> > Seems like the suggestion I made did not come through because I
> > strike-through
> > Screen Shot 2021-03-11 at 12.44.34 PM.png
> >  that didn't appear on the mailing list archive so I took a screenshot
> > of the changes I suggested which is attached.
> >
> > I will rewrite it here.
> > Farzaneh
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hrpc mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> >
>