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

Amelia Andersdotter <amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc> Wed, 03 June 2020 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc>
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 197FF3A0FDE for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 03:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 jeR0E6ceujML for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 03:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2673A3A0FDD for <pearg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 03:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: 212.76.239.56
Received: from [192.168.0.233] (cable-212.76.239.56.coditel.net [212.76.239.56]) (Authenticated sender: amelia@andersdotter.cc) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7D46E0009 for <pearg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:59:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: pearg@irtf.org
References: <08f43a37-2b7b-418e-95a8-ed57484c66be@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMzdOQw6ZhR_XT49+u3cpu28p7EQAxQ8DXBiMHi7uUF2g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc
From: Amelia Andersdotter <amelia.ietf@andersdotter.cc>
Message-ID: <07e1c625-9b0b-47ab-5d48-ac35b00899d2@andersdotter.cc>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:57:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMzdOQw6ZhR_XT49+u3cpu28p7EQAxQ8DXBiMHi7uUF2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/cN-jD0Fpetfskx5pAb72wa0Wbrw>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for "A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques"
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, 03 Jun 2020 10:59:22 -0000

On 2020-05-29 19:28, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Document: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-03.txt
>
> S 2.
>     We describe three elements of Internet censorship: prescription,
>     identification, and interference.  The document contains three major
>     sections, each corresponding to one of these elements.  Prescription
>     is the process by which censors determine what types of material they
>     should block, i.e., deciding to block a list of pornographic
>     websites.  Identification is the process by which censors classify
>     specific traffic to be blocked or impaired, i.e., blocking or
>     impairing all webpages containing "sex" in the title or traffic to
>     www.sex.example.  Interference is the process by which censors
>
> I'm not finding this distinction super clear. It seems to me like
> deciding to block www.sex.example and "impairing...traffic to
> www.sex.example" are pretty similar.

I felt like picking up on this: the difference between blocking and
impairing is that blocking would be definitive (content is rendered
inaccessible to end-node), while impairment would just mean, for
instance, downgraded in quality (content is made to run more slow or
without encryption, for instance). I do feel there is a point to keeping
that distinction.

It serves the purpose of highlighting that censorship may take more
subtle forms than outright bans on sensitive content.

best regards,

Amelia