[governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

[Seth Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> I finally see your (and I suspect seth's) point - and that boils down to taking some principled stands that are non negotiable.  Still with those boundaries drawn there is still scope for engagement, and alternate perspectives.


Aside from the general fact that in some areas you have to draw a
line, you also need rights to actually work as limits on governments.
That's one of the most important nuts to crack.  You get strict
scrutiny if you do something like the EU did; you get a balancing
standard -- at best -- when you try to "negotiate" rights in the
international forum.  I avoid talking about "balance" until we're in a
position of actually operating on that basis.  If we're going to be
fuddy duddy about rights (say, because terror), then we have to be
clear in these terms about what we're doing.


Seth


> --srs
>
>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 10:39 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Suresh,
>>
>> I take your point but my point is one of starting places and objectives. If you start out looking for balance, you’re starting out from a conception that you will end up with a win/lose arrangement. I think this is just the wrong paradigm to start from when it comes to human rights issues in particular, but not only those. Does that mean we should look to protect privacy at all costs? No. It does mean that we should start from the premise that we are looking for something that is more than the sum of its parts, and only settle for a zero-sum result if that’s the only possible result.
>>
>> Aim high. Aiming low means you will never achieve high ;)
>>
>> Finally, this may quickly go into the weeds and the list as a whole may not be interested in going there.
>>
>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 16:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> After a longish career in security I find that there’s a delicate balance between three things - privacy, security and usability.
>>>
>>> It is not always possible, or even advisable in certain cases, to achieve an equitable balance between the three, let alone one weighted excessively in favor of one of the three.
>>>
>>> There is a substantial body of academic papers on the subject - https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/
>>>
>>>> On 29-Oct-2015, at 9:06 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For what its worth, in some places, I, too don’t think balance is the idea.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, starting from the position that in privacy ‘balance’ is the objective means that there’s a finite amount of privacy to go around and it has to get parceled out amongst competing priorities. That’s a zero-sum outlook - why would that be a desirable starting place? Surely what is wanted is a win-win - solutions which are more than the sum of their parts.
>>>>
>>>> Just an example, but top of mind for me when I hear about ‘balance’.
>>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t