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

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
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 5045F3A0F9A for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=open-xchange.com
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 8HYxyaWG3xi7 for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C90D3A0F12 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 00:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893C06A256; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1596613241; bh=DS6M2Jgpaw1wCUUnHaOqRUCH8oD+77s7Fi2eCApKUeg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=pA7UsznaFX+PAr2FPpcFM4BQlajJKBlF8Sp2ELZB3DSfK6ib/L4FywjrnnHsZFu0m 8YW6vVwL1b/wmKaOGo/mgjMl4+XOIlq0ovotKwvL+uFg9M/g6Snfqrqgk4OUvgxDh5 5vuGhb1ZZ49BtfMEBw2HfAifGnie5lDjLC8uPYAwtqEzdDiCHsXFwQPT+N7fxVKLSY xetdRgTQPCy4bLWCAiURawwrY9jG8cTCJ4ZtsuRfo0AVJfN2QHji6p7ylaWWkOhQXJ 8XUzByZ2XFjvqX9YzpSCruVWpifh0fGXLq7Ra2wcWe9d1GcQ+ejW/CzwFik22hpjkn VSko7OjQg9xow==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B1B43C004B; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: pearg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <336581179.1095.1596613241405@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200804185831.GA17517@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <159466596628.22724.642459259274073600@ietfa.amsl.com> <116747697.938.1596554741142@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20200804185831.GA17517@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev4
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/Pb-xB83lCN5a6fVmR_g3ZL_JaY0>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 07:40:45 -0000


> Il 04/08/2020 20:58 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> ha scritto:
> 
> Censorship is when a third party blocks content that the sender wants
> to send and the recipient wants to receive.

Under this definition - or any other definition based on consent - even blocking abusive and violent material (from revenge porn to CSAM) would be considered censorship. So I don't think you can expect everyone to agree on this approach. Same for this:

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

If an employer blocks access to Facebook from the office to prevent employees from wasting their paid time, I don't see how that could be considered an attack on human rights.

In any case, I don't think that the purpose of the draft should be to define what censorship is. I was rather suggesting that we document the disagreements so that there can be consensus on the draft and no one feels offended by it. If on the other hand it is not meant to be a consensus document, then there could perhaps be another non-consensus draft documenting the alternative views; this could also be a valid approach.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy