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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:59 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > Il 04/08/2020 17:38 Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> 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 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.
>

As I said before, it's useful here to distinguish between blocking that is
with the consent of the user (albeit sometimes in an opt-out fashion as
with safe browsing) and that which is imposed on the user without their
consent. I don't see a problem with calling the latter censorship, even if
the content being blocked is non-political.

-Ekr