Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

I am a bit surprised about this conversation here and now, especially
with the recent uptick in human rights reviews of several protocols
(which have all been well received by draft authors), new drafts being
developed and discussed and more researchers coming into this
interdisciplinary RG. This work is also the explicit focus of at least 3
researchers I know of.  Also, there is no other RG I know of which has
had contributions from a UN special rapporteur, and an explicit mention
in his report to the UN.

But if you think this is not sufficiently interdisciplinary, I think the
RG would welcome the discussion of other topics and influx of new people
very much (as it has always done), and there is still ample time to
submit new drafts and agenda points before IETF103.

This sub-thread sounds a bit like: I don't like what is being discussed,
so let's close it down.

Best,

Niels

On 09/21/2018 11:11 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> I strongly agree, and would go further.
> 
> As I see it, the HRPC suffers fundamental problems from both
> participation and its charter. 
> 
> The charter itself, in my opinion, displays a facile understanding of
> human rights.  It includes the statement:
> 
>> * To expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a
>> focus on
>> the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
> 
> That belies the need to balance rights contained in frameworks such as
> the UDHR, as you and others including myself have repeatedly noted.  We
> have largely been ignored.  The poor interdisciplinary composition of
> the group as well as its sole output reflects this regrettable constraint.
> 
> In this latest debacle, a position was put forth that is largely
> unsubstantiated.  The only research I as a layperson have found finds
> that harm related to offensive language is contextually determined.[1] 
> Surely it's the case that a choice of words *can* harm, and maybe even
> harm human rights. However, the HRPC appears to not have the expertise
> either in psychology or linguistics to even have a serious discussion
> about language, and the co-chair has attempted to stifle debate.  The
> research group is not having a discussion that reflects the results or
> ongoing work of any research.
> 
> As you say, there really are serious human rights issues relating to our
> technology that we as a community could and should address. 
> Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, there are no criminologists,
> members from the law enforcement community, or human rights experts from
> interested governments.  While it's always difficult to engage
> interdisciplinary experts in the HRPC, the sole focus on a subset of
> human rights clearly presents an additional obstacle. Research *is*
> happening, but it is happening elsewhere and with zero
> collaboration/coordination from HRPC.[2]
> 
> If this entire debate over master/slave is about inclusiveness, nothing
> could harm that objective more than advocacy of particular political
> positions.  Sadly, that is precisely what focusing on a small subset of
> rights has led to.  The HRPC should either be rechartered or closed. 
> Because I am skeptical we can really attract the right participants, _I
> lean toward closure_.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> [1] Jay, T. (2009). Do offensive words harm people? Psychology, Public
> Policy, and Law, 15(2), 81-101.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015646
> [2] Savage, C., "Justice Dept. Revives Push to Mandate a Way to Unlock
> Phones", The New York Times, 24 Mar 2018, 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/us/politics/unlock-phones-encryption.html
> 
> 
> On 21.09.18 01:34, John Levine wrote:
>> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>> In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like
>>> Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology
>>> that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.
>> If this is really the best that HRPC can do, I would suggest that it's
>> time for the IRTF to consider whether to shut it down.
>>
>> When I've gone to HRPC sessions, I have heard endless papers about
>> more or less plausible threats to freedom of expression or to
>> anonymous speech (which is not the same thing.)  More than once I have
>> stood up at HRPC sessions and noted that the Universal Declaration of
>> Human Rights has thirty articles, and none of the discussion deals
>> with more than two of them.  The chairs have assured me that they are
>> equally interested in the other rights, but the evidence of that is
>> pretty thin.
>>
>> What about article 12, protection agaisnt attacks on honor and
>> repuation?  What is HRPC doing about trolling and other online
>> attacks?
>>
>> Or article 17, nobody shall be arbitrariy deprived of his property?
>> What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to enable
>> phishing and other online theft?
>>
>> Or article 23, the right to rest and leisure?  What is HRPC doing to
>> keep our protocols from being used to put people on a 24 hour
>> electronic leash?
>>
>> Instead, we get this stuff.  Even if you think that the language in
>> our RFCs is problematic, which for the most part I don't, I am
>> confident that no RFC has ever enslaved anyone, nor put anyone on a
>> secret list that kept them from working (the actual meaning of
>> blacklist for people who know their history.)
>>
>> There are real human rights problems that HRPC could engage with, but
>> don't.  They need to make up their mind whether they're serious.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3