Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for "A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques"

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

Please see inline below.

On Fri, May 29, 2020, at 1:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> > To try and sharpen this point a bit: this document will certainly have gaps, and it's not a goal to fill all those gaps. This field moves quickly enough that trying to doing so would likely be futile. 
> 
> I agree, and I am not suggesting that all gaps be covered. That was a 
> straw man put forth by the author.

Great!

> > The chair decision to begin RGLC was based on the document's content and history, which was deemed sufficiently thorough with respect to relevant issues that protocol designers might consider going forward. That said, concrete suggestions to fill in those gaps are welcome! The authors and RG should certainly review them if provided, though we won't block progress waiting for additional content that doesn't substantially change the document's purpose.
> 
> I am sorry I didn’t catch this earlier, but I presumed that last call 
> was meant to address these sorts of matters. 

Indeed it is! I didn't mean to imply that other comments raised were not up for discussion. On the contrary, I think they're helpful contributions that can help improve the document. 

> I would ask that it be 
> noted that there is not a firm consensus on the document as it stands, 
> as several of us have raised substantial issues. Were I to explore them 
> outside of this group in the broader IETF or research communities, I 
> feel certain that you would not find consensus over the terminology. 
> You needn’t take my word for this.
> 
> To restate my concerns, there are three major points and one further 
> down that may or may not be a major point:
> 
>  * The definition of censorship itself does not match common usage.
>  * There is no definition of “censorship regime”.
>  * The one reference I checked was clearly not appropriate in its 
> usage, leading me to wonder about the others.
> 
> On terminology
> 
> It seems that it is being claimed that these are terms of art. 
> Regardless, a properly justified definition with an appropriate 
> reference is in order. This has not happened here. There are two 
> specific problems with the first sentence and its reference. First, the 
> text doesn’t match the reference given. It is never appropriate to 
> mislead the reader in this way. Second, Wikipedia is not a primary 
> source. It is especially important to get the definition right in 
> interdisciplinary work, especially when we are talking about defining a 
> very politically charged term that the rest of the document is 
> dedicated to ameliorating. Beyond the academic matter, as I have 
> previously alluded, by not setting that context, the authors risk 
> offending many practitioners dedicated to infrastructure protection in 
> the very first sentence of the first section.
> 
> Unless you find fault with my reasoning above, and I readily allow for 
> such a possibility, we must agree that this is an issue.  If you place 
> the onus on me to solve it and I refuse, the issue would remain. Of 
> course I am happy to be a part of solving the problem. As it happens, 
> Joe himself put forth a perfectly fine way to put the work into 
> context, to which I readily agreed, but then he himself rejected, even 
> though what he proposed is a close variant of what appears in the 
> document’s abstract. The substance here is the difference between 
> “content" and “information” and perhaps motivation. I am not suggesting 
> a full exploration of what censorship is, but some justification for 
> the language. Same for “censorship regime”, given its similar negative 
> connotations.

With no hat on, I mostly agree. I'll take a stab at addressing this in a PR and share it on the list. We can iterate on the details there. :-)

> On references
> 
> We have previously seen sloppy use of references in at least one other 
> RG. By chance, I have spotted two errors, one to the WP reference and 
> the other only because I know one of the authors of the referenced 
> work. I have not checked the others, but the pass rate right now is 
> 0/2. I would strongly suggest that the other references be checked 
> through broader review.

Yep, these too are good issues to raise now. I'll file an issue to review all references carefully before progressing. 

> Adding the additional non-technical example
> 
> On “Non-Technical [Prescription/Interference]”. As I wrote above, I 
> don’t expect the authors to be exhaustive, but I am told that the topic 
> is out of scope, and yet the text remains. I would suggest an add, 
> perhaps around “swaying public thought”, to include something like 
> “adding financial liability”. The reason I think the point is important 
> enough to raise is that from a scale perspective, the financial attack 
> may be the most effective attack of all against profit-based platforms. 
> Is it major or minor? I don’t know. I lean toward “minor” only because 
> the document might stand up without its mention, even though I would 
> view it as an opportunity lost.

If you have time, could you please suggest concrete text (ideally in the form of a PR)? I think that'll make this discussion easier. 

Thanks again for your review, feedback, and help improving the document!

Best,
Chris