Re: [hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I really don’t know what you are expecting.  What is your risk tolerance?  A fork can be a dangerous instrument, and not having attribution can lead to awkward questions like, “Why didn’t you credit my account for a payment my bank sent you?”  OAUTH, SAML, AAA, and a host of other tools will allow for attribution.  For some it’s a primary feature.

The concern shouldn’t be that the ship sailed, but rather that it not run aground.

Eliot



> On 11 Mar 2021, at 22:27, Mark Perkins <marknoumea=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> MP>> This is exactly my fear, excepting that I disagree that "that ship has sailed", and am still not sure that consensus has been reached on this issue...
> 
> Mark P.
> 
> Le 12/03/2021 à 05:34, farzaneh badii a écrit :
>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
> 
>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <x-msg://12/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>_______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc