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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Thu, 06 August 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DE03A0E45 for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Dd5RVgJIQmZ for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B8B03A0E41 for <>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10) id 2ADF4A0273; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:40:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 02697EC0B0D; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:37:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:37:22 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Vittorio Bertola <>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 18.04 (bionic)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:40:52 -0000

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:40:41AM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> So I don't think you can expect everyone to agree on this approach.

Well, this entire I-D is about a political issue (even if the draft
takes care of discussing only techniques) and it is common in politics
that not everyone agrees. As Mallory reminded us, IRTF does not
require consensus.

> 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.

You are talking about something different. I said "this is censorship"
and you replied "it is not an attack on human rights". As was
discussed here, censorship is a fact (unless one wants to rewrite
language into NewSpeak). Its legitimacy is an opinion. Taking down
nazi Web sites is censorship. IMHO, it is legitimate. We should not be
afraid of words.