Subject: [hrpc] [cases needed] little help for our short documentary on hrpc

From: Joana Varon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:00:46 -0300

Dear all,

I've been reading you people in silent, but just wanted to give a quick
follow up on Avri's last email about still not screening our short film
in Prague with the interviews we've recorded in Dallas.

We had 22hs of interviews (thanks to everyone that took the time, it was
very enlightening), which were currently reduced to a 17 minutes cut
with some level of coherence :) Nevertheless, it is not ready for
showing yet, not only because it needs post-production, but also because
we are still recording inserts, developing animations and considering
archive research for images, else it is just talking heads and not very
engaging.

We want the film to show what representatives of the IETF community
think about hrpc, all the rich different views and challenges, but also
to make it tangible to people that might be concerned in protecting
human rights in the protocol level and could help us further in our
research, as it is, by nature, interdisciplinary. So, taking this
challenge into account, and discussing the cuts with scriptwriter
friends, we came to the conclusion that addressing concrete cases would
help.

Therefore, while we are in this film production process, I want to ask
you once again for a little help:

Could you refer us to:
- Concrete examples where_you think_ that standards or protocols have
been exploited and threatened human rights?
- Other side of the coin, would you mention concrete cases where _you
think_ that human rights have been positively affected by the way
standards and protocols where designed?

Please, bear in mind that we are just asking what "you think", if they
do affect HR or not, it will be a matter to be further analyzed in the
research of this group. We just want to bring possible examples for
further analysis to make this whole debate more concrete to the outside
world. :)

I really hope this makes sense to you. This is also some sort of
exercise that we will have to face as part of implementing the research
methodology of this group, which draft will be shared here soon (and by
the moment it is stuck in what is the best method to address this exact
same point of cases :)).

Also, if you have any suggestions of other groups or people we should
address these two questions, please, let me know.

Many thanks in advance.

Best

joana

-- 
--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
https://antivigilancia.org
https://codingrights.org
Fingerprint 
239D E977 32D0 28BC 297F 64B6 3B69 BDE4 016B 8E73

---

From: Tim Sammut <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:20:12 +0100

Hi Joana. Sorry if this is known--I am coming to this late...

> standards and protocols where designed?

Are we looking for instances where the standard was somehow changed to
either weaken or strengthen human rights? Or are we looking for examples
of standardized protocols that have a positive/negative human rights impact?

For example, I am not aware of any protocol standards that were
specifically altered because of human rights considerations; however,
there are many standardized protocols (e.g. DNS and HPKP) were their use
has an impact.

Does my question make sense?

hope you are well
tim

-- 
Tim Sammut ~ @t1msammut ~ [email-masked]
Ford-Mozilla Fellow at Amnesty International

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:00:56 -0400

Hi,

I think it is too early stage on this work for anyone to be late. thanks
for the note.

I think you make a good point about needing to include both cases.  And
I think you are right, an effect as unintended consequence is probably
the more frequent.

Though if there are any cases where an intentional effect, probably
positive*, was an expectation if not an intent, it would be good to know
those as well.

avri

* i do not expect anyone knows of a case of a protocol with features of
ill intent or even negative expectations.  Of course if anyone does
would be happy to see them discussed.

> Does my question make sense?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Tim Sammut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:37:01 +0100

Hi, thank you.

So then are we interested in listing out existing protocols that have a
post-implementation positive or negative impact? For example:

 - DNS (ignoring DNSSEC) does not authenticate responses which
   facilitates censorship

 - HTTPS Public Key Pinning (HPKP) increases likelihood that HTTPS
   certificates are not fraudulent, therefore increasing privacy

I am happy to start such a list, but would like to make sure this is
indeed what we want.

hope all is well
t

On 07/03/2015 03:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:41:10 +0200

Hi Tim,

This is great. This is indeed exactly the kind of list (and
granularity) that is needed. A lot of attention has been going out to
privacy, so focusing on freedom of expression, freedom of
association/assembly (and perhaps non-discrimination) would be great!

Thanks again,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 07/08/2015 11:37 AM, Tim Sammut wrote:
> Hi, thank you.
> 
> So then are we interested in listing out existing protocols that
> have a post-implementation positive or negative impact? For
> example:
> 
> I am happy to start such a list, but would like to make sure this
> is indeed what we want.
> 
> hope all is well t
> 
>> I think it is too early stage on this work for anyone to be late.
>> thanks for the note.
>> 
>> I think you make a good point about needing to include both
>> cases.  And I think you are right, an effect as unintended
>> consequence is probably the more frequent.
>> 
>> Though if there are any cases where an intentional effect,
>> probably positive*, was an expectation if not an intent, it would
>> be good to know those as well.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> * i do not expect anyone knows of a case of a protocol with
>> features of ill intent or even negative expectations.  Of course
>> if anyone does would be happy to see them discussed.
>> 
>>>> Could you refer us to: - Concrete examples where_you think_
>>>> that standards or protocols have been exploited and
>>>> threatened human rights? - Other side of the coin, would you
>>>> mention concrete cases where _you think_ that human rights
>>>> have been positively affected by the way standards and
>>>> protocols where designed?
>>> Are we looking for instances where the standard was somehow
>>> changed to either weaken or strengthen human rights? Or are we
>>> looking for examples of standardized protocols that have a
>>> positive/negative human rights impact?
>>> 
>>> For example, I am not aware of any protocol standards that
>>> were specifically altered because of human rights
>>> considerations; however, there are many standardized protocols
>>> (e.g. DNS and HPKP) were their use has an impact.
>>> 
>>> hope you are well tim
>> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing
>> list [email-masked] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ hrpc mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>