Re: [hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 20/03/2021 07:45 Mark Perkins <marknoumea=[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
>  
> Hi & thanks Niels
> 
> If this replacement can be done great- can we see how that will look?
> 
> If we can also insert the principle 'no right may be used to undermine / 
> annul other rights', as per Gurshabad Grover's text regarding remedy 
> (originally attribution) re privacy/anonymity/freedom of speech, then 
> things would be excellent

This is also true in the opposite direction: if you suffer damage, vital threats, harassment etc. and you cannot get the harasser identified because of their right to anonymity, then anonymity is undermining your right to personal safety. So it's fine to restate in general that rights may often conflict among themselves - and someone's rights with someone else's rights - but that seems quite obvious anyway. If what you are suggesting is instead that some rights should always take precedence over others, then I disagree. 

In terms of advice to protocol designers, the advice should IMHO always be to consider and mediate the impact on all rights when conceiving a new technology, rather than on advancing some to deny others. The document focuses almost entirely on individual rights, less so on the collective right to live safely and under the rule of law, for which attribution is a pre-requisite. In my opinion, the document would need more focus on this latter issue, not less or none, also because this is the real rights problem that technologists face today. It is very easy today to design super-anonymous, super-private protocols; it is much harder to find good ways to preserve privacy while ensuring controlled access to law enforcement under due judicial process when this is necessary to uphold someone else's rights and safety.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[e-mail] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy