Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 09:11 UTC
Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E59126BED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 02:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QA4ZMuW31CuO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 02:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4CE130E29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 02:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12459; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537521099; x=1538730699; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=wSB6POnj/J8omRJvBClLaZgRLLymCPTWQECOrU21zTE=; b=MaRD5rNsZ7RAzbsJZjrAqBfhmK2Mvqc/d3iBcJQrQD21oD7hnm6jfyFn Q9GooipWByE4WTJZYVOHPqqix8RRlZYg6OBgFcy4r6vqEACvj3pjNpskA TUqgBlDewYEUUNZ7IR3d5zMqKPrhq4xRA4spS5RjApln+8FYowaLjqJzp g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CVAACStKRb/xbLJq0YAUIZAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBAYQ+bRIog3OIdI06JZEThzYIAyWERwKDZjgUAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOQEFDhVCBgcXCxgqAgJXBgEMBgIBARCCagEiAYIBD4UrnGWBLh+EDAGFUQ+CbYZngQ0mggASgQAnDIIPUIMbAQKEYYJXApx6CYQBgWVdiWAGF4h2hjKLeIkJgVkhgVUzGggbFTuCbAmFeYUUhT0DPTABjgUBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,284,1534809600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="6644057"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Sep 2018 09:11:35 +0000
Received: from [10.61.245.100] ([10.61.245.100]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w8L9BZpn032369; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:11:35 GMT
Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20180920233440.238CA20051DDE5@ary.qy>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=lear@cisco.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFMe1UQBCADdYOS5APDpIpF2ohAxB+nxg1GpAYr8iKwGIb86Wp9NkK5+QwbW9H035clT lpVLciExtN8E3MCTPOIm7aITPlruixAVwlBY3g7U9eRppSw9O2H/7bie2GOnYxqmsw4v1yNZ 9NcMLlD8raY0UcQ5r698c8JD4xUTLqybZXaK2sPeJkxzT+IwupRSQ+vXEvFFGhERQ88zo5Ca Sa1Gw/Rv54oH0Dq2XYkO41rhxQ60BKZLZuQK1d9+1y3I+An3AJeD3AA31fJZD3H8YRKOBgqe ILPILbw1mM7gCtCjfvFCt6AFCwEsjITGx55ceoQ+t5B5XGYJEppMWsIFrwZsfbL+gP31ABEB AAHNJUVsaW90IExlYXIgPGxlYXJAb2Zjb3Vyc2VpbXJpZ2h0LmNvbT7CwJEEEwECADsCGwMC HgECF4ACGQEWIQSY0L2QRh2wkqeyYR2HtmtG2dJ6MwUCWxJwMwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgID AQAKCRCHtmtG2dJ6MyMyCACXvtFjAYGMtOkD9MD4nI3ifFpkrj8xTMbXjrv5hdqmzRmQ0wqA 1U/OlZux+P/NaVMiZNZc8zw0nsx/INAqDOVd4/tLWF+ywTkeRFR0VnaUxLwCReZAZOaRS+md +52u/6ddoFja2RnjZ43qbbuvVUARQVIyMJz+GbR6mEZQHR0psD7dDYZDyrpivCxm8zHQwmB6 AZUlO7OJgljDvVPVDCabg/ZnJw1qS0OzSiNb0MySk1D5A7FdwDgeKxuMYUOOoVVTTMWNWcME UkRX9LxElswEt0PQWiz/j3FYXTxiFfl/1vKcHx4pM+E5C5mhTbrdFUFLJC3Y5fLID7stK/Ch aEaBzsBNBFMe1UQBCAC0WV7Ydbv95xYGPhthTdChBIpPtl7JPCV/c6/3iEmvjpfGuFNaK4Ma cj9le20EA5A1BH7PgLGoHOiPM65NysRpZ96RRVX3TNfLmhGMFr5hPOGNdq+xcGHVutmwPV9U 7bKeUNRiPFx3YdEkExddqV2E8FltT0x2FSKe2xszPPHB6gVtMckX5buI9p1K3fbVhXdvEkcY Y/jB0JEJGyhS5aEbct5cHUvDAkT81/YFK5Jfg8RRwu1q1t1YuIJSOWAZQ9J9oUsg6D9RpClU +tIFBoe3iTp1AUfJcypucGKgLYKtpu/aygcpQONHYkYW5003mPsrajFhReVF5veycMbHs4u5 ABEBAAHCwF8EGAECAAkFAlMe1UQCGwwACgkQh7ZrRtnSejOSuQgA27p2rYB7Kh20dym6V8c6 2pWpBHHTgxr/32zevxHSiXl6xvUCg5T8WUwfUk8OvgDcBErK/blDAMXQzSg3sp450JhR8RnX HXF5Zz2T04X7HnlIVJGwf2CjnwyEAJCqMzaCmI+g3Imvg/8L4nyBFvhlFHDv+kIvMiujyycj PAu7xxKplBs1/IEwmDoAMjneFmawvfeQnwdMhSKK8PjKSuzGU5uUmxj3GBfRqvTM0qpmhMPF OmDhJSmH55HLAky2MlmqJYXJPt/9EfSEhFiua1M6gLiuNEuPkp+8jcnHQqKr0IeHt8UqcwLt 2mGfIyl0FVdF9hvWPjNRzGbgqoT1Di03RQ==
Message-ID: <5d3da769-5243-f6ee-35b2-d63f9e43b33a@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:11:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180920233440.238CA20051DDE5@ary.qy>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OcvDZ4yyti3PwC5zBrYvFB57RMQL22ILi"
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.245.100, [10.61.245.100]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S_rItGlE7cdLTr7vgpdiUhWowzg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:11:42 -0000
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 <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> 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 > >
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel