Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Fri, 21 September 2018 11:02 UTC
Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
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 CAF9F130DDE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk
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 OUMOzkL6_p_P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic310-12.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic310-12.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [77.238.177.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8886712F18C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 04:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1537527744; bh=O8Yq3xw60mQxQeAKHUlNqReMdTkl5YpCYtdKXT4cgDM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=c3UA4fGvaBOnabg2goEcrA6Z9VafzWNjd9eErRZc8ZszHffDQyzFqOf7QsxryGbAoDPzbU8p8k8b87XLMq3aI7HboynaO5/Y/BVZJzNRCaxAn/sS05mAtOgfd+LxmNz/3I+UiQu5UbjMwZO2d7XykDU9W5XdMqZ+AYMxEAKvu5+3g1V9o9tEr3JNnkRmyWkah4pmZeoxYwyL40QCUlvRLg3rwJrNe1syRWba0XlIR1rnxlhS0lQ/zuHWbcGLpsQU+ljK9s9mkkp7VFQ5NxPdzh1uIFVyv+dfik/jJ8/VyTnACQpHYDOFPpBIxUpALwdNSgX79G6gH4L7cz5+7Bc8RA==
X-YMail-OSG: FxmbLIcVM1mzY.b62jN1jp0LCuNjHlpApNQZcO4F9uWVrytXrBrJXfAoWaeEWao FOt_XPiBx6dTIpHS5xwS2he4JrrQS8TSo6f.b5XJbIuTB4IMy2fXQSwQcZUumYG1ZlyHSb51Bmgm gcOVIgeeBJ8zMnwvRwXXwjZ2unsTGXsv2FbfuphDsKDEVBd4UT6krth3be1WF0vEYDel8kB5K1ct YT7ifBn0Mj2JKAc4q6mjTDqa00e5b22766hYbpsRd4ABq7sOJ6FjIhRrtoj0XlH4HB6ZEQb8QP3b yePhRupA56FZzytP8pfR3laHPrLV7AZm7n8wW8kGa6ny2DpPjUHfCeKwqGrjJK3eFgt.LsZmQNN3 p9P4D34dtvAvn8uN1M_0JHICWBRvhGSuS7jt8l9WgBhvRPQIjAYRKSpTAypKKt8hR2Ya1Rmw1qpw mFAfHlOG7t7.JAMND_PWXMEfqbIjt_SsIYrgTp4x6ZD5uHb9azzwD1ZBwQpCieUCibS1U_9dzk.9 5uv2ANG2_5Kjqj1zZ01mMcS5H8wxKd4HQxOZ9fXL1ldMPMs_KN3Kn4e62px.daCx.ozxafztsVm6 Rm3QLSQ4xiCCMC7L5YrVtM_cU2EbMoBjwHJRE2BQO8AJMvb3czZvWu6qUW7ZkfPn0YdMEzJd2BIi KdlgVzQr7bsOhmkvDjJQu0ocUre9s4wTQ0..eIbB6somtEADKYQKr0DJyzzZtL.zPMeTk0jgmlHb vL6_s2IBHHrK1z19ox_E2gpbX90Tp6ZebR8Qz7fSp9lZIMWkuoHy2GkN2qHWXKeKkSXWMqEwIxww Jx1GIWN8H03tD0ex9U1WX2xbOTw0A6SLwPB9xL4iQE5XqYkFZnf6WO8XY7cD9tV89qb1EoqcosiX atBukucECk1OwaiQxxcxqiMXDWHcHPNy0vDfeneGE0KSmV.gMprmOwhLbzebe9UhRcempX1P2xSW Nzc8DDL6YW6W2YL6xTq0DKZKRhWVxzcxyYV6qohiCvJlvxn.81gLAFYk-
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic310.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:02:24 +0000
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:01:45 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <325538173.14441870.1537527705103@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <4c8aa4ce-b491-b816-9967-e723b8b3be03@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <20180920233440.238CA20051DDE5@ary.qy> <5d3da769-5243-f6ee-35b2-d63f9e43b33a@cisco.com> <4c8aa4ce-b491-b816-9967-e723b8b3be03@digitaldissidents.org>
Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.12406 YahooMailNeo Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XvFMp8Tdkvig3ct0YE-2oMW8lsE>
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 11:02:28 -0000
Niels, you are surprised about this conversation here and now on HPRC, despite you being the very person who initiated this conversation introducing the topic of HPRC to the main list? And you complain about someone expressing a contrary and dissenting position while emailing from **digitaldissidents**.org? Irony much? (I'd also like to know why my replies to you aren't cc'ing the list by default; that does look like an attempt to stifle debate, but I don't see the expected Reply-To: in headers.) L. remember: social justice warriors have never been to war. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018, 20:10 Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs 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 <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 >> >> > -- 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
- 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