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

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 26/05/2020 12:02 Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
> I have a concern about the use of the term “censorship”.  Is removal of fraudulent material censorship?  How about taking down a system that part of a DOS attack?  Is taking down a system that is attacking critical infrastructure censorship?  Is botnet disruption censorship?  Are FCC frequency rules against harmful interference censorship?  By the sweeping definition given, they are.  This  immediately diminishes the credibility of the work because it flies in the face of what normal people think censorship is.

Sorry for missing this thread in the last couple of days. I made this same objection a year ago or so. This pretty maximalist definition of censorship (by the way, sourced from Wikipedia) is IMHO still a big problem with this document. 

Almost no one outside of digital rights activism circles would say that blocking a DDoS attack or taking down a botnet-infected server is censorship. Many would also not say that removing an unlicensed online pharmacy or an illegal gambling website is censorship. Censorship is when communication is blocked based on the opinions it carries - and even in that case, many people actually find some instances of censorship justified, such as blocking terrorist or Nazi propaganda, even in democratic countries. 

I think that the document conflates two things: one is a technical analysis of communication-blocking mechanisms, which can be used for "censorship in the narrow sense" or for other purposes that require interference with communications. Another one is an ethical stance on the fact that these mechanisms are always bad and are to be considered "censorship" in any case. 

The first thing is fine, but the second is not, as then values come into play and there are different views on the subject; and I'm not even sure that deciding whether censorship is good or bad, or what censorship is or is not, fits the charter of this group.

So, I think that the document should use other terms than "censorship" and "censors" everywhere, and add an initial discussion on the fact that there are different purposes for which these techniques are used, and while some people think that they are always bad, and some people (i.e. authoritarian regimes) think that they are always good, the broad majority of the planet would say that they are sometimes bad and sometimes good, requiring a more specific assessment before taking a decision on whether a protocol should support, circumvent or ignore them.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[e-mail] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy