Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 04 August 2020 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3AD3A1045 for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wrOnbulPx_ma for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [92.243.4.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CAEC3A0FE8 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id A490BA0272; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 20:59:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A3E6EC0B7D; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 20:58:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 20:58:31 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: pearg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20200804185831.GA17517@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <159466596628.22724.642459259274073600@ietfa.amsl.com> <116747697.938.1596554741142@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <116747697.938.1596554741142@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 18.04 (bionic)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/4cR6QFXj0rzzYJF2wfuBmo_HUM4>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:59:41 -0000

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:25:41PM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote 
 a message of 31 lines which said:

> 1. any blocking of content
> 2. any blocking of content except when done for technical and network security reasons (botnets, malware etc)
> 3. only the blocking of political content opposing a country's regime

I don't think that anyone, at the IETF or elsewhere, would label
"censorship" "any blocking of content". If I install uBlock on my
browser (or Pi Hole on the network), it is clearly not censorship if
half of the content of a Web page is blocked.

Censorship is when a third party blocks content that the sender wants
to send and the recipient wants to receive. Your case 2 is in the grey
area since it can be said that the recipient does not want to receive
malware.

Also, case 3 is way too narrow. If content is blocked for business
reasons, it is no longer censorship?

> accepts to be depicted like that.

I agree with Mallory here: people cannot choose how they are depicted,
it would be too easy.

> Then, it seems to me (though I haven't gone through the draft
> checking each and every reference) that almost all examples in the
> draft relate to authoritarian countries

Several examples (may be only a minority) are for the European
Union. Most members of the EU cannot probably be described as
"authoritarian".

> - only limit the survey to the examples that fall in #3, as these
> are unanimously considered to be censorship;

Not even that case is unanimous. The chinese governement does not call
its blocking "censorship" but use nice words like "maintaning
harmony".