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

Mallory Knodel <> Tue, 04 August 2020 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0AF3A0C81 for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.037
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G96k4tGJzZDx for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCF423A0C9D for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b14so37334415qkn.4 for <>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 10:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=McLnid9Mqjrd/w9bnpHJjOQl9G45+l6SpUktVq/Duhs=; b=dQ8v78l4vXKUZgALMeMqKcA532HK5K4R4FaXOYsrF70wVHMocpONxIUXh6GMnoJq8+ w4GREHhOoH7CgW0vJKch2YAKchRYtK7SNfqoTHOusQUCgPSffLOZ/4WxhMAXoB3RQhJH FkdfC/Ban2ioJfA/wbQ/Ofoj6v4fgc99qXi4M=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=McLnid9Mqjrd/w9bnpHJjOQl9G45+l6SpUktVq/Duhs=; b=trf1OHJOtu4R+3aNgqOT0nBeP9rkdjmR/fLevqiAJJ95O6xfBBAgJ1jb63wX9vY0qG 7RHPoRZB0xdmclFh1QNpkiValWjNOSg3uOOVmdWaiFOkZQ6uG7FbW6OdmJCMB081WcdQ /9BrJt0RNOCbvK3gZbN7wn6dAC2nkAe0x6Va+KJjl8vW7UOmatjRlqxz7QB4NWgT/eun HLn9TPJoSMsXuG0i2VQdM82sDTAgxGZfWacBqUMxOYMRY0FSVBmgXh0qkayMjinerlcO PLXj9c/D3eAd/+k0Jb0th2nSg0ZrfNis90SjxnVGiD7EPDEDvVqrpdmetsQP83iqqiDo 4WDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533iQB4SXkhSExDs3C3o4U1aZ4eBD/ufvO6/+P8HYmFYgayS6P2X sv7YmhsQRafLXo8lKZINJXn4bZq2ciM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4Gwb4m5kx6HhnyMRuAG8Dtl1QYfNAsVqv33eQhG4QcBLHtNbRFMQvwYRdS/kjFPUkoqImjQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:13c4:: with SMTP id g4mr22544134qkl.142.1596560557586; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 10:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Mallorys-MacBook-Air.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c70sm19969212qke.109.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: Vittorio Bertola <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Mallory Knodel <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:02:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/79.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:02:40 -0000

On 8/4/20 12:59 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>> Il 04/08/2020 17:38 Mallory Knodel <> ha scritto:
>> On 8/4/20 11:25 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>> So for a significant part of the Internet community these techniques can be used for legitimate purposes other than censorship, and this should be acknowledged from the beginning, agreeing that not everyone using these techniques is a censor or accepts to be depicted like that.
>> It's been said in this thread that censorship can be legitimate or
>> illegitimate.
> But not in the draft, as far as I can recall.
It's out of scope to define censorship from scratch, and it references a 
wikipedia page that says this very thing in the first para.
>> It shouldn't be the aim of this draft to talk about the censors at all,
>> nor how they'd like to be depicted. The draft is about the techniques.
> The point is whether we can ever come to consensus on this draft and turn it into an RFC, which in my opinion is going to be hard if some IETF participants have to accept to be labelled as "censors" for using the techniques in the draft to, say, block access to phishing websites, or execute a court order.

Consensus isn't required for an IRTF RFC. Again, the draft doesn't label 
censors; it's a draft about techniques.


Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780