[governance] [Internet Policy] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design?

Sun Nov 10 22:46:57 EST 2019

This kinda stuff looks like a lot of handwaving to me. The technical standards for the Internet do describe protocols for endpoint to endpoint communication, but that does not require endpoints to use their connections for any laudatory purpose. The standards also don’t constrain the organization of the Internet in terms of services, data centers, and financial models. By itself, standards are just words on a screen while the Internet is iron, fiber, silicon, and money. 

Human rights are also nothing without a legal regime that enforces them. The UDHR includes a section on artists’ rights that directly collides with certain expectations of Internet use; I don’t see any mention fo copyright enforcement in this paper. So we all have rights, but some rights are more worthy than others?

I think it’s fundamentally misguided to try and design rights into a technical system. In practice, any network system can be used just as easily to protect rights as to violate them. Human rights and network design are different layers of the modern cultural system, it’s best if each one stays in its lane.

RB

> On Nov 10, 2019, at 7:52 PM, Mawaki Chango via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Anriette and Alejandro for these summaries/ clarifications.
> 
> @Anriette: As a matter of fact, I ran into this other paper by same authors when I was searching earlier this past week:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Human20Rights20and20Internet20Protocols-20Comparing20Processes20and20Principles.pdf <https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Human20Rights20and20Internet20Protocols-20Comparing20Processes20and20Principles.pdf> 
> Not sure to what extent one is a version of, or evolved from, the other but I'll soon find out on my next flight in a few hours :)
> In any case, I am sure the question of the consideration of social values in tech design (including protocols and standards) is much older... As the titles of some academic journals may suggest. But as you perfectly understood, I wanted to find out the extent to which the reflection started long ago from the outside and in Joy & Avri's paper may now be shaping the tech work. 
> 
> @Alejandro: Good to know these ideas have pervaded the tech work to a point it might be challenging to track. I suspect that might be the object of a whole research project. Just noting that you wrote: "The IETF started its work... in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier." The fact is the NSA/ Snowden revelations also occurred in 2013. That may be coincidence but not evidence of a process starting way earlier. In any case, that's a point of detail, and again, thank you for the complement of information.   
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> ====================================
> Mawaki Chango, PhD                  
> Founder & Managing Director
> DigiLexis Consulting
> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis 
> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango
> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555
> ====================================
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan at unam.mx <mailto:apisan at unam.mx>> wrote:
> Mawaki,
> 
> this work has extended too far now to account for every part of it. The IETF started its work on "perpass" (pervasive passive surveillance, recognized as a threat) in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier. From it spawned several lines of work, both in the IETF and further out. Some of them were the strong move to encryption with TLS, the push by many organizations to only accept Web traffic with HTTPS, and all the way to the ongoing process regarding DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which encrypts DNS traffic so that even ISPs can't see it. You may be aware that there is a significant quid pro quo in network management and human rights when this is done. Mozilla is the most visible party engaging in favor of DoH at this time. 
> 
> Lots more is and has been done both at the standards and in the operational level. This is but a quick summary trying to bridge what is alreay more than six years. Much of it can be traced to the ISOC initiative Anriette has already written about.
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
>  
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>  
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com/>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty>
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
> 
> Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net> [governance-request at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net>] en nombre de Mawaki Chango [governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>]
> Enviado el: domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019 03:35
> Hasta: governance; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Asunto: Re: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design?
> 
> The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement more than it actually holds.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement:
> 
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en>
> https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ <https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/>
> Anriette
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning
> Association for Progressive Communications
> apc.org <http://apc.org/>
> afrisig.org <http://afrisig.org/>
> anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and technology design. 
>> 
>> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance!
>> 
>> Mawaki 
>> 
>> 
>> ====================================
>> Mawaki Chango, PhD                  
>> Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting
>> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis 
>> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango
>> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555
>> ====================================
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

—
Richard Bennett
High Tech Forum <https://hightechforum.org/> Founder
Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator

Internet Policy Consultant

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191110/1f18f0e5/attachment.htm>