Subject: [hrpc] Nomenclature/Definition of Human Rights issues in Protocol Design

From: Aaron Zauner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:10:11 +0100

Hi,

During the HRPC meeting at IETF92 there were a couple of proposal on how
to address human rights issues in protocol design. We clearly need some
sort of definition that is clear to protocol designers, implementers and
people that deploy these protocols in the real world.

I don't think that "protocol perversion" is an appropriate term; as some
have already pointed out, 'perversion' might be a positive protocol
feature that enables technology evolution.

  * Wrongly answering DNS queries (Turkey) is a technique that some
    CDNs also use to speed up answering requests or giving geolocation
    aware answers.

  * BGP Hijacking is correct use of the protocol as specified.

  * QoS techniques as used in Iran and China are used as specified.

  ..et cetera..

I think the proper approach is to think of intent (as done in security
in general). Speaking of malicious intent when a protocol is (mis)used
in a way that causes human rights issues would be an example.

Input appreciated.

Aaron