[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04
draft-tenoever-hrpc-research
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group J. Varon
Internet-Draft Coding Rights
Intended status: Informational C. Cath
Expires: January 7, 2016 Oxford Internet Institute
July 06, 2015
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Methodology
draft-varon-hrpc-methodology-00
Abstract
This document presents steps undertaken for developing a methodology
to map engineering concepts at the protocol level that may be related
to promotion and protection of Human Rights, particularly the right
to freedom of expression and association. It feeds upon and is
intended to facilitate the work done by the proposed Human Rights
Protocol Considerations research group, as well as other authors
within the IETF.
Exemplary work [RFC1984] [RFC6973] [RFC7258] has already been done in
the IETF on privacy issues that should be considered when creating an
Internet protocol. But, beyond privacy considerations, concerns for
freedom of expression and association were also a strong part of the
world-view of the community involved in developing the first Internet
protocols. Indeed, promoting open, secure and reliable connectivity
is essential for these rights. But how are this concepts addressed
in the protocol level? Are there others? This ID is intended to
explain research work done so far and to explore possible
methodological approaches to move further on exploring and exposing
the relations between standards and protocols and the promotion and
protection of the rights to freedom of expression and association.
Discussion on this draft at: hrpc@irtf.org //
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/admindb/hrpc
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Research Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Map cases of protocols being exploited or enablers . . . 6
3.3. Apply human rights technical definitions to the cases
mapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Preliminary findings achieved by applying current proposed
methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Current Status: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Current Status: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Current status: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Current status: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Next Steps of the Methodology still to be applied . . . . . . 9
5.1. Map cases of protocols being exploited or enablers . . . 9
5.2. Apply human rights technical definitions to the cases
mapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Next Steps of the Methodology still to be developed . . . . . 9
6.1. Future research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Research Group Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
In a manner similar to the work done for [RFC6973] on Privacy
Consideration Guidelines, the premise of this research is that some
standards and protocols can solidify, enable or threaten human
rights.
As stated in [RFC1958], the Internet aims to be the global network of
networks that provides unfettered connectivity to all users at all
times and for any content. Our research hypothesis is that
Internet's objective of connectivity makes it an enabler of human
rights and that its architectural design tends to converge in
protecting and promoting the human rights framework.
Open, secure and reliable connectivity is essential for human rights
such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, as defined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. Therefore,
considering connectivity as the ultimate objective of the Internet,
makes a clear case that the Internet is not only an enabler of human
rights, but that human rights lie at the basis of, and are ingrained
in, the architecture of the network.
But, while the Internet was designed with freedom and openness of
communications as core values, as the scale and the commercialization
of the Internet has grown greatly, the influence of such world-views
started to compete with other values. Therefore, decisive and human
rights enabling characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if
they're not properly defined, described and protected as such. And,
on the other way around, not protecting these characteristics could
also result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity,
thus, in the internet architecture design itself.
An essential part of maintaining the Internet as a tool for
communication and connectivity is security. Indeed, "development of
security mechanisms is seen as a key factor in the future growth of
the Internet as a motor for international commerce and communication"
[RFC1984] and according to the Danvers Doctrine [RFC3365], there is
an overwhelming consensus in the IETF that the best security should
be used and standardized.
In [RFC1984], the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee
architecture and standards for the Internet, expressed: "concern by
the need for increased protection of international commercial
transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
users an adequate degree of privacy." Indeed, the IETF has been
doing a significant job in this area [RFC6973] [RFC7258], considering
privacy concerns as a subset of security concerns.
Besides privacy, it should be possible to highlight other aspects of
connectivity embedded in standards and protocols that can have human
rights considerations, such as freedom of expression and the right to
association and assembly online. This ID is willing to explain
research work done so far and explore possible methodological
approaches to move further on exploring and exposing these relations
between standards and protocols and the promotion and protection of
the rights to freedom of expression and association.
To move this debate further, information has been compiled at the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/hrpc/ and discussions are happening
through the list hrpc@irtf.org
This document builds on the previous IDs published within the
framework of the proposed hrpc research group [ID]
2. Research Topic
The growing impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals makes
Internet standards and protocols increasingly important to society.
The IETF itself, in [RFC2026], specifically states that the
'interests of the Internet community need to be protected'. There
are various examples of protocols and standards having a direct
impact on society, and by extension the human rights of end-users.
Privacy is just one example. Therefore, this proposal for research
methodology is addressing as research topics the rights to freedom of
expression and association and it's relations to standards and
protocols.
These two rights are described in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights:
Article 19 - Freedom of Expression (FoE) "Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 20 - Freedom of Association (FoA) "Everyone has the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
But how to talk about human rights in an engineering context?
But can we translate these concepts into Internet architecture
technical terms?
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
What standards and protocols could have any relationship with freedom
of expression and association?
What are the possible relationships between them?
3. Methodology
Mapping the relation between human rights and protocols and
architectures is a new research challenge, which requires a good
amount of interdisciplinary and cross organizational cooperation to
develop a consistent methodology. While the authors of this first
draft are involved in both human rights advocacy and research on
Internet technologies - we believe that bringing this work into the
IRTF facilitates and improves this work by bringing human rights
experts together with the community of researchers and developers of
Internet standards and technologies.
In order to map the potential relation between human rights and
protocols, so far, the HRPC proposed research group has been gathered
the data from three specific sources:
a. Discourse analysis of RFCs To start addressing the issue, a
mapping exercise analyzing Internet architecture and protocols
features, vis-a-vis possible impact on human rights is being
undertaken. Therefore, research on the language used in current and
historic RFCs and mailing list discussions is underway to expose core
architectural principles, language and deliberations on human rights
of those affected by the network.
b. Interviews with members of the IETF community during the Dallas
meeting of March 2015 Interviews with the current and past members of
the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), current and past members of
the Internet Engineering Steering Group(IESG) and chairs of selected
working groups and RFC authors. To get an insider understanding of
how they view the relationship (if any) between human rights and
protocols to play out in their work.
c. Participant observation in Working Groups By participating in
various working groups information was gathered about the IETFs day-
to-day work. From which which general themes and use-cases about
human rights and protocols were extracted.
All this data was then processed using the following three
consecutive strategies:
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
3.1. Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical Definitions
Step 1.1 - Mapping protocols and standards related to FoE and FoA
Activity: Mapping of protocols and standards that potentially enable
the internet as a tool for freedom of expression Expected Outcome:
list of RFCs that describe standards and protocols that are
potentially more closely related to FoE and FoA.
Step 1.2 - Extracting concepts from mapped RFCs Activity: Read the
selected RFCs to highlight central design and technical concepts
which impact human rights. Expected Outcome 1: a list of technical
terms that combined create the enabling environment for freedom of
expression and freedom of association. Expected Outcome 2: Possible
translations of human rights concepts to technical terms.
Step 1.3 - Building a common glossary In the analysis of existing
RFCs, central design and technical concepts shall be found which
impact human rights. Expected Outcome: a Glossary for human rights
protocol considerations with a list of concepts and definitions of
technical concepts
3.2. Map cases of protocols being exploited or enablers
Step 1.1 - Cases of protocols being exploited Activity 1: Map cases
in which users rights have been exploited, violated or compromised,
analyze which protocols or vulnerabilities in protocols are invovled
with this. Activity 2: Understand technical rational for the use of
particular protocols that undermine human rights. Expected Outcome:
list of protocols that have been exploited to expose users to rights
violation and rationale.
Step 1.2 - Cases of protocols being enablers Activity: Map cases in
which users rights have been enabled, promoted and protected and
analyze which characteristics in the protocols are involved with
this. Expected Outcome: list of characteristics in the protocols
that have been key to promote and protect the rights to freedom of
expression and association that could be added to our glossary
3.3. Apply human rights technical definitions to the cases mapped
Step 1 - Glossary and Cases Activity: Investigate alternative
technical options from within list of technical design principle (see
[HRPC-GLOSSARY]) that could have been applied in the mapped cases to
strengthen our technical definition of FoE and FoA, and hence human
rights and connectivity of the network.
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
Expected Outcome: Identify best (and worst) current practices.
Develop procedures to systematically evaluate protocols for potential
human rights impact.
4. Preliminary findings achieved by applying current proposed
methodology
4.1. Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical Definitions
Step 1.1 - Mapping protocols and standards related to FoE and FoA
Below are some examples of these protocols and standards that might
be related to FoE and FoA and FoE:
HTTP Websites made it extremely easy for individuals to publish their
ideas, opinions and thoughts. Never before has the world seen an
infrastructure that made it this easy to share information and ideas
with such a large group of other people. The HTTP architecture and
standards, including [RFC7230], [RFC7231], [RFC7232], [RFC7234],
[RFC7235], [RFC7236], and [RFC7237], are essential for the publishing
of information. The HTTP protocol, therefore, forms an crucial
enabler for freedom of expression, but also for the right to freely
participate in the culture life of the community (Article 27) [UDHR],
to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.
Real time communications through XMPP and WebRTC Collaborations and
cooperation via the Internet have take a large step forward with the
progress of chat and other other real time communications protocols.
The work on XMPP [RFC6162] has enabled new methods of global
interactions, cooperation and human right advocacy. The WebRTC work
being done to standardize the API and protocol elements to support
real-time communications for browsers, mobile applications and IoT by
the World Wide Consortium (W3C) and the IETF is another artifact
enabling human rights globally on the Internet.
Mailing lists Collaboration and cooperation have been part of the
Internet since its early beginning, one of the instruments of
facilitating working together in groups are mailing lists (as
described in [RFC2639], [RFC2919], and [RFC6783]. Mailing lists are
critical instruments and enablers for group communication and
organization, and therefore form early artifacts of the
(standardized) ability of Internet standards to enable the right to
freedom of assembly and association.
IDNs English has been the lingua franca of the Internet, but for many
Internet user English is not their first language. To have a true
global Internet, one that serves the whole world, it would need to
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
reflect the languages of these different communities. The
Internationalized Domain Names IDNA2008 ([RFC5890], [RFC5891],
[RFC5892], and [RFC5893]), describes standards for the use of a broad
range of strings and characters (some also written from right to
left). This enables users who use other characters than the standard
LDH ascii typeset to have their own URLs. This shows the ambition of
the Internet community to reflect the diversity of users and to be in
line with Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
which clearly stipulates that "everyone is entitles to all rights and
freedoms "[...]", without distinction of any kind, such as "[...]"
language "[...]"." [UDHR]
4.2. Current Status:
Based on these standards and protocols, a raw list of RFCs that
describe standards and protocols that are potentially related to FoE
and FoA is available here: https://github.com/nllz/IRTF-
HRPC/blob/master/RFC%20overview.ods
Step 1.2 - Extracting concepts from mapped RFCs The list of RFCs
compiled above has used to extract our key concepts.
4.3. Current Status:
Expected Outcome 1: a list of technical terms that combined create
the enabling environment for human rights, such a freedom of
expression and freedom of association.
Architectural principles Enabling features
and characteristics for user rights
/------------------------------------------------\
| |
+=================|=============================+ |
= | = |
= | End to end = |
= | Reliability = |
= | Resilience = Access as |
= | Interoperability = Human Right |
= Good enough | Transparency = |
= principle | Data minimization = |
= | Permissionless innovation = |
= | Graceful degradation = |
= | Connectivity = |
= | = |
= \------------------------------------------------/
= =
+===============================================+
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
4.4. Current status:
Expected Outcome 2: Translating human rights to technical terms.
This analysis points to translating the concept of freedom of
expression as follows:
+--
| content agnosticism
freedom of expression = | connectivity
| privacy
| security
+--
Step 1.3 - Build a common glossary
4.5. Current status:
Expected Outcome: A first list of concepts, which definitions should
be improved and further aligned with existing RFCs, is being publish
as [ID]
5. Next Steps of the Methodology still to be applied
5.1. Map cases of protocols being exploited or enablers
5.2. Apply human rights technical definitions to the cases mapped
6. Next Steps of the Methodology still to be developed
6.1. Future research questions
All of the steps taken above raise the following question that need
to be addressed after the research methodological steps outlined
above have been completed:
How can the rights enabling environment be safeguarded in (future)
protocol development?
How can (nontransparent) human rights violations be minimized in
(future) protocol development?
Can we propose guidelines to protect the Internet as a human-rights-
enabling environment in future protocol development, specially in
relation to freedom of expression and freedom of association, in a
manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in
[RFC6973]?
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
Assuming that the research produces useful results, can the objective
evolve into the creation of a set of recommended considerations for
the protection of applicable human rights?
7. Security Considerations
As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Research Group Information
The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
proposed working group is located at the e-mail address hrpc@ietf.org
[1]. Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to
the list is at https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.irtf.org/mail-
archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html
10. References
10.1. Informative References
[HRPC-GLOSSARY]
ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and D. Gillmor, "Human Rights
Protocol Considerations Glossary", 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dkg-hrpc-glossary-00.txt>.
[ID] ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and J. Varon, "Proposal for
research on human rights protocol considerations", 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doria-hrpc-proposal>.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC1984] IAB, IESG, Carpenter, B., and F. Baker, "IAB and IESG
Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet",
RFC 1984, August 1996.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2639] Hastings, T. and C. Manros, "Internet Printing
Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide", RFC 2639, July 1999.
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
[RFC2919] Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
RFC 2919, March 2001.
[RFC3365] Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61, RFC
3365, August 2002.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5892, August 2010.
[RFC5893] Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts for
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5893, August 2010.
[RFC6162] Turner, S., "Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type",
RFC 6162, April 2011.
[RFC6783] Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII
Addresses", RFC 6783, November 2012.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
2013.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
2014.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
[RFC7232] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, June 2014.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June
2014.
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft hrpcm July 2015
[RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.
[RFC7236] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236, June 2014.
[RFC7237] Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
Method Registrations", RFC 7237, June 2014.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.
10.2. URIs
[1] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org
Authors' Addresses
Joana Varon
Coding Rights
EMail: joana@codingrights.org
Corinne Cath
Oxford Internet Institute
EMail: corinne.cath@oii.ox.ac.uk
Varon & Cath Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 12]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/