[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [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                              N. ten Oever
Expires: June 6, 2016                                          Article19
                                                            C. Guarnieri
                                    Centre for Internet and Human Rights
                                                                W. Scott
                                                University of Washington
                                                                 C. Cath
                                               Oxford Internet Institute
                                                       December 04, 2015

            Human Rights Protocol Considerations Methodology


   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 aims to facilitate and
   build the work done by the Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   research group in the IRTF, 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 //

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

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   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
   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 June 6, 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Preliminary findings achieved by applying current proposed
       methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Current status: Translating Human Rights Concept into
           Technical Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Current Status: Mapping protocols and standards related
           to FoE and FoA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Current Status: Extracting concepts from mapped RFCs  . .   8
     4.4.  Current status: Translating human rights to technical
           terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Current status: Building of a common glossary . . . . . .  10
     4.6.  Current status: Map cases of protocols being exploited or
           enablers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.6.1.  IP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

       4.6.2.  DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.6.3.  HTTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.6.4.  XMPP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.6.5.  Peer to Peer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.6.6.  Virtual Private Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   5.  Next Steps of the Methodology still to be applied . . . . . .  25
     5.1.  Apply human rights technical definitions to the cases
           mapped  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Next Steps of the Methodology still to be developed . . . . .  25
     6.1.  Future research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

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

   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

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   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
   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 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

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   These two rights are described in the Universal Declaration of Human

   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?

   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 research group has been gathering 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

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   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:

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 rationale 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

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   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.

   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

4.1.  Current status: Translating Human Rights Concept into Technical

   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

   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.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   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
   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: Mapping protocols and standards related to FoE and

   Based on these standards and protocols as well as an analysis of
   existing RFCs and literature, a listing of architectural concepts has
   been made.

   Step 1.2 - Extracting concepts from mapped RFCs The list of RFCs as
   well as relevant literature has used to extract key architectural
   principles.  The main architectural concepts were subsequently listed
   in the glossary [HRPC-GLOSSARY].

4.3.  Current Status: Extracting concepts from mapped RFCs

   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.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

     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  =                  |
    =    Simplicity   |     Graceful degradation    =                  |
    =                 |          Connectivity       =                  |
    =                 |          Heterogenity       =                  |
    =                 |                             =                  |
    =                 |                             =                  |
    =                 \------------------------------------------------/
    =                                               =

4.4.  Current status: Translating human rights to technical terms

   Expected outcome 2: This analysis aims to translate human rights
   concepts that impact or are impacted by the Internet as follows:

   The combination of content agnosticism, connectivity, security,
   privacy (as defined in [RFC6973], and open standards are the
   technical principles that underlay freedom of expression on the

    (        Connectivity         )
   (         Privacy               )
   (         Security              )   = freedom of expression
   (         Content agnosticism   )
   (        Internationalization   )
   (        Censorship resistance  )
   (        Open Standards         )
    (       Heterogeneity support )

   (      Anonymity           )
  (       Privacy              )   = Right to non-discrimination
  (       Pseudonymity         )
   (      Content agnosticism )

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

  (         Content Agnosticism  )
  (         Security             )    = Right to equal protection

   (        Anonymity       )
  (         Privacy          )   = Right to be presumed innocent
   (        Security        )

   (  Accessibility         )
  (   Internationalization   ) = Right to political participation
  (   Censorship resistance  )

   (  Open standards         )
  (   Localization            ) = Right to participate in cultural life,
  (   Internationalization    )             arts and science
   (  Censorship resistance  )

   (  Connectivity         )
  (   Decentralization      )
  (     Censorship resistance ) = Right to freedom of assembly
  (   Pseudonymity          )                   and association
  (   Anonymity             )
   (  Security             )

      ( Reliability    )
     (  Confidentiality )
     (  Integrity       ) = Right to security
     (  Authenticity    )
      ( Anonymity      )

   Step 1.3 - Build a common glossary

4.5.  Current status: Building of a common glossary

   Expected Outcome: A glossary has been developed, which aims to build
   on other relevant published glossaries by the IETF and relevant
   literature: [HRPC-GLOSSARY]).  This document aims to provide a
   description of relevant architectural principals as well as technical
   concepts that are relevant for describing the impact of protocols on
   human rights.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

4.6.  Current status: Map cases of protocols being exploited or enablers

4.6.1.  IP

   The Internet Protocol version 4, known as 'layer 3' of the internet,
   and specified as a common encapsulation and protocol header, is
   defined by [RFC0791].  The evolution of Internet communications have
   led to continued development in this area, encapsulated in the
   development of version 6 of the protocol in [RFC2460].  In spite of
   this updated protocol, we find that 25 years after the specification
   of version 6 of the protocol, the older v4 standard continues to
   account for a sizable majority of internet traffic.

   The internet was designed as a platform for free and open
   communication, most notably encoded in the end-to-end principle, and
   that philosophy is also present in the technical implementation of
   the Internet Protocol.  [RFC3724] While the protocol was designed to
   exist in an environment where intelligence is at the end hosts, it
   has proven to provide sufficient information that a more intelligent
   network core can make policy decisions and enforce policy shaping and
   restricting the communications of end hosts.  These capabilities for
   network control and limitations of the freedom of expression by end
   hosts can be traced back to the IPv4 design, helping us understand
   which technical protocol decisions have led to harm of these human

   Two major shifts have occurred to harm freedom of expression through
   misuse of the Internet Protocol.  The first is the network's
   exploitation of the public visibility of the host pairs for all
   communications, and the corresponding ability to discriminate and
   block traffic as a result of that metadata.  The second is the
   selective development of IP options.  Protocol extensions including
   Mobility and Multicasting have proposed alternate communication modes
   and suggest that different forms of assemply could be supported by an
   a robust IP layer.  Instead, the protocol has limited the
   deployability of such extensions by not providing a mechanism for
   appropriate fallback behavior when unrecognized extensiosn are
   encountered.  Network visibility of Source and Destination

   The IPv4 protocol header contains fixed location fields for both the
   source and destination IP addresses [RFC0791].  These addresses
   identify both the host sending and receiving each message, and allow
   the core network to understand who is talking to whom, and to
   practically limit communication selectively between pairs of hosts.
   Blocking of communication based on the pair of source and destination
   is one of the most common limitations on the ability for hosts to

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   communicate today, [caida] and can be seen as a restriction of the
   ability for those hosts to assemble or to consensually express

   Inclusion of an Internet-wide identified source in the IP header is
   not the only possible design, especially since the protocol is most
   commonly implemented over Ethernet networks exposing only link-local
   identifiers.  [RFC0894] A variety of alternative designs including
   source routing, and spoofing of the source IP address are technicaly
   supported by the protocol, but neither are regularly allowed on the
   Internet.  While projects like [torproject] provide an alternative
   implementation of anonymity in connections, they have been developed
   in spite of the IPv4 protocol design.  Protocols

   The other major feature of the IP protocol header is that it
   specifies the protocol encapsulated in each message in an easily
   observable form, and does not encourage a design where the
   encapsulated protocol is not available to a network observer.  This
   design has resulted in a proliferation of routers which inspect the
   inner protocol, and has resulted in a stagnation where only the TCP
   and UDP protocols are widely supported across the Internet.  While
   the IP protocol was designed as the entire set of metadata needed for
   routing, subsequent enhanced routers have found value on making
   policy decisions based on the contents of TCP and UDP headers as
   well, and are encoded with the assumption that only these protocols
   will be used for data transfer. [spdy] [RFC4303] defines an encrypted
   encapsulation of additional protocols, but lacks widespread
   deployment and faces the same challenge as any other protocol of
   providing sufficient metadata with each message for routers to make
   positive policy decisions.  Protocols like [RFC4906] have seen
   limited wide-area uptake, and these alternate designs are frequently
   re-implemented on top of UDP. [quic]  Address Translation and Mobility

   A major structural shift in the Internet which has undermined the
   protocol design of IPv4, and has significantly reduced the freedom of
   end users to communicate and assemble in the introduction network
   address translation.  [RFC1631] Network address translation is a
   process whereby organizations and autonomous systems to connect two
   networks by translating the IPv4 source and destination addresses
   between the two.  This process puts the router performing the
   translation into a privileged position, where it can decide which
   subset of communications are worthy of translation, and whether an
   unknown request for communication will be correctly forwarded to a
   host on the other network.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   This process of translation has widespread adoption despite promoting
   a process that goes against the stated end-to-end process of the
   underlying protocol [natusage].  In contrast, the proposed mechanism
   to provide support for mobility and forwarding to clients which may
   move, encoded instead as an option in the IP protocol in [RFC5944],
   has failed to gain traction.  This situation again suggests that the
   compromise made in design of the protocol has resulted in a
   technology which failed to technical encode the freedom of expression
   goals it was designed to promote.

4.6.2.  DNS

   The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035], provides service discovery
   capabailities, and provides a mechanism to associate human readable
   names with services.  The DNS system is organized around a set of
   independently operated 'Root Servers' run by organizations around the
   web which enact ICANN's policy by answering queries for which
   organizations have been delegated to manage registration under each
   Top Level Domain (TLD).  Top Level domains are maintained and
   determined by ICANN.  These namespaces encompass several classes of
   services.  The initial name spaces including '.Com' and '.Net',
   provide common spaces for expression of ideas, though their policies
   are enacted through US based companies.  Other name spaces are
   delegated to specific nationalities, and may impose limits designed
   to focus speech in those forums both to promote speech from that
   nationality, and to comply with local limits on expression and social
   norms.  Finally, the system has been recently expanded with
   additional generic and sponsored name spaces, for instance '.travel'
   and '.ninja', which are operated by a range of organizations which
   may independently determine their registration policies.

   DNS has significant privacy issues per [RFC7626].  Most notable are
   the lack of encryption to limit the visibility of requests for domain
   resolution from intermediary parties, and a limited deployment of
   DNSSEC to provide authentication, allowing the client to know that
   they have received a correct, "authoritative", answer to a query.
   Together, this situation results in ongoing harm to freedom of
   expression as interference with the operation of DNS has become one
   of the central mechanisms used to block access to websites.  This
   interference limits both the freedom of expression of the publisher
   to offer their content, and the freedom of assembly for clients to
   congregate in a shared virtual space.

   There have been several mechanisms used impose these limitations
   based on the technical design of the DNS protocol.  These have led to
   a number of situations where limits on expression have been imposed
   through subversion of the DNS protocol.  Each of these situations has
   accompanying aspects of protocol design enabling those limitations.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015  Removal of records

   There have been a number of cases where the records for a domain are
   removed from the name system due to real-world events.  Examples of
   this removal includes the 'seizure' of wikileaks [bbc-wikileaks] and
   the names of illegally operating gambling operations by the United
   States ICE unit, which compelled the US-based registry in charge of
   the .com TLD to hand ownership of those domains over to the
   government.  The same technique has been notably used by Libya to
   remove sites in violation of "our Country's Law and Morality (which)
   do not allow any kind of pornography or its promotion." [techyum]

   At a protocol level, there is no technical auditing for name
   ownership, as in alternate systems like [namecoin].  As a result,
   there is no ability for users to differentiate seizure from the
   legitimate transfer of name ownership, which is purely a policy
   decision of registrars.  While DNSSEC addresses network distortion
   events described below, it does not tackle this problem, which has
   the cooperation of (or compelled action by) the registry.  Distortion of records

   The most common mechanism by which the DNS system is abused to limit
   freedom of expression is through manipulation of protocol messages by
   the network.  One form occurs at an organizational level, where
   client computers are instructed to use a local DNS resolver
   controlled by the organization.  The DNS resolver will then
   selectively distort responses rather than request the authoritative
   lookup from the upstream system.  The second form occurs through the
   use of deep packet inspection, where all DNS protocol messages are
   inspected by the network, and objectionable content is distorted, as
   in [turkey].

   A notable instance of distortion has occurred in Greece [ververis],
   where a study found evidence of both of deep packet inspection to
   distort DNS replies, and overblocking of content, where ISPs
   prevented clients from resolving the names of domains which they were
   not instructed to do through the governmental order prompting the
   blocking systems there.

   At a protocol level, the effectiveness of these attacks is made
   possible by a lack of authentication in the DNS protocol.  DNSSEC
   provides the ability to determine authenticity of responses when
   used, but it is not regularly checked by resolvers.  DNSSEC is not
   effective when the local resolver for a network is complicit in the
   distortion, for instance when the resolver assigned for use by an ISP
   is the source of injection.  Selective distortion of records has also
   been made possible by the predictable structure of DNS messages,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   which make it computationally easy for a network device to watch all
   passing messages even at high speeds, and the lack of encryption,
   which allows the network to distort only an objectionable subset of
   protocol messages.  Specific distortion mechanisms are discussed
   further in [draft-hall-censorship-tech-01].  Injection of records

   Responding incorrectly to requests for name lookups is the most
   common mechanism that in-network devices use to limit the ability of
   end users to discover services.  A deviation which accomplishes a
   similar objective, though may be seen as different from a freedom of
   expression perspective, is the injection of incorrect responses to
   queries.  The most prominent example of this behavior occurs in
   China, where requests for lookups of sites which have been deemed
   inappropriate will trigger the network to respond with a bogus
   response, causing the client to ignore the real response when it
   subsequently arrives. [greatfirewall] Unlike the other forms of
   discussion discussed above, injection does not stifle the ability of
   a server to announce it's name, it instead provides another voice
   which answers sooner.  This is effective because without DNSSEC, the
   protocol will respond to whichever answer is received first, without
   listening for subsequent answers.

4.6.3.  HTTP

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), described in its version 1.1
   in RFC 7230 to 7237, is a request-response application protocol
   developed throughout the 1990s, and factually contributed to the
   exponential growth of the Internet and the inter-connection of
   populations around the world.  Because of its simple design, HTTP has
   become the foundation of most modern Internet platforms and
   communication systems, from websites, to chat systems, and computer-
   to-computer applications.  In its manifestation with the World Wide
   Web, HTTP has radically revolutionized the course of technological
   development and the ways people interact with online content and with
   each other.  However, HTTP is also a fundamentally insecure protocol,
   that doesn't natively provide encryption properties.  While the
   definition of the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), and later of Transport
   Layer Security (TLS), also happened during the 1990s, the fact that
   HTTP doesn't mandate the use of such encryption layers to developers
   and service providers, caused a very late adoption.  Only in the
   middle of the 2000s we observed big Internet service providers, such
   as Google, starting to provide encrypted access to their web

   The lack of sensitivity and understanding of the critical importance
   of securing web traffic incentivized malicious and offensive actors

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   to develop, deploy and utilize at large interception systems and
   later active injection attacks, in order to swipe large amounts of
   data, compromise Internet-enabled devices.  The commercial
   availability of systems and tools to perform these types of attacks
   also led to a number of human rights abuses that have been discovered
   and reported over the years and that painted a dark picture on the
   current state of control over the Internet.

   Generally we can identify in Traffic Interception and Traffic
   Manipulation the two most problematic attacks that can be performed
   against applications employing a clear-text HTTP transport layer.  Traffic Interception

   While we are seeing an increasing trend in the last couple of years
   to employ SSL/TLS as a secure traffic layer for HTTP-based
   applications, we are still far from seeing an ubiquitous use of
   encryption on the World Wide Web. It is important to consider that
   the adoption of SSL/TLS is also a relatively recent phenomena.
   Google introduced an option for its GMail users to navigate with SSL
   only in 2008 [Rideout], and turned SSL on by default later in 2010
   [Schillace].  It took an increasing amount of scandalous security
   breaches and revelations on global surveillance from Edward Snowden
   to have other Internet service providers to follow Google's lead.
   For example, Yahoo enabled SSL/TLS by default on its webmail services
   only towards the end of 2013 [Peterson].

   As we learned through the Snowden's revelations, intelligence
   agencies have been intercepting and collecting unencrypted traffic at
   large for many years.  There are documented examples of such mass
   surveillance programs with GCHQ's TEMPORA and NSA's XKEYSCORE.
   Through these programs NSA/GCHQ have been able to swipe large amounts
   of data including email and instant messaging communications which
   have been transported by the respective providers in clear for years,
   unsuspecting of the pervasiveness and scale of governments' efforts
   and investment into global mass surveillance capabilities.

   However, similar mass interception of unencrypted HTTP communications
   is also often employed at a nation-level by less democratic countries
   by exercising control over state-owned Internet Service Providers
   (ISP) and through the use of commercially available monitoring,
   collection, and censorship equipment.  Over the last few years a lot
   of information has come to public attention on the role and scale of
   a surveillance industry dedicated to develop interception gear of
   different types.  We have several records of such equipment being
   sold and utilized by oppressive regimes in order to monitor entire
   segments of population especially at times of social and political
   distress, uncovering massive human rights abuses.  For example, in

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   2013 the group Telecomix revealed that the Syrian regime was making
   use of BlueCoat products in order to intercept clear-text traffic as
   well as to enforce censorship of unwanted content [RSF].  Similarly
   in 2012 it was found that the French Amesys provided the Gaddafi's
   government with equipment able to intercept emails, Facebook traffic,
   and chat messages ad a country level.  The use of such systems,
   especially in the context of the Arab Spring and of civil uprisings
   against the dictatorships, has caused serious concerns of significant
   human rights abuses in Libya.  Traffic Manipulation

   The lack of a secure transport layer over HTTP connections not only
   exposes the users to interception of the content of their
   communications, but is more and more commonly abused as a vehicle for
   active compromises of computers and mobile devices.  If an HTTP
   session travels in clear over the network, any node positioned at any
   point in the network is able to perform man-in-the-middle attacks and
   observe, manipulate, and hijack the session and modify the content of
   the communication in order to trigger unexpected behavior by the
   application generating the traffic.  For example, in the case of a
   browser the attacker would be able to inject malicious code in order
   to exploit vulnerabilities in the browser or any of its plugins.
   Similarly, the attacker would be able to intercept, trojanize, and
   repackage binary software updates that are very commonly downloaded
   in clear by applications such as word processors and media players.
   If the HTTP session would be encrypted, the tampering of the content
   would not be possible, and these network injection attacks would not
   be successful.

   While traffic manipulation attacks have been long known, documented,
   and prototyped especially in the context of WiFi and LAN networks, in
   the last few years we observed an increasing investment into the
   production and sale of network injection equipment both available
   commercially as well as deployed at scale by intelligence agencies.
   For example we learned from some of the documents provided by Edward
   Snowden to the press, that the NSA has constructed a global network
   injection infrastructure, called QUANTUM, able to leverage mass
   surveillance in order to identify targets of interests and
   subsequently task man-on-the-side attacks to ultimately compromise a
   selected device.  Among other attacks, NSA makes use of an attack
   called QUANTUMINSERT [Haagsma] which intercepts and hijacks an
   unencrypted HTTP communication and forces the requesting browser to
   redirect to a host controlled by NSA instead of the intended website.
   Normally, the new destination would be an exploitation service,
   referred in Snowden documents as FOXACID, which would attempt at
   executing malicious code in the context of the target's browser.  The
   Guardian reported in 2013 that NSA has for example been using these

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   techniques to target users of the popular anonymity service Tor
   [Schneier].  The German NDR reported in 2014 that NSA has also been
   using its mass surveillance capabilities to identify Tor users at
   large [Appelbaum].  Recently similar capabilities of Chinese
   authorities have been reported as well in what has been informally
   called the "Great Cannon" [Marcak], which raised numerous concerns on
   the potential curb on human rights and freedom of speech due to the
   increasing tighter control of Chinese Internet communications and
   access to information.  Network injection attacks are also made
   widely available to state actors around the world through the
   commercialization of similar, smaller scale equipment that can be
   easily acquired and deployed at a country-wide level.  Companies like
   FinFisher and HackingTeam are known to have network injection gear
   within their products portfolio, respectively called FinFly ISP and
   RCS Network Injector [Marquis-Boire].  The technology devised and
   produced by HackingTeam to perform network traffic manipulation
   attacks on HTTP communications is even the subject of a patent
   application in the United States [Googlepatent].  Access to offensive
   technologies available on the commercial lawful interception market
   has been largely documented to have lead to human rights abuses and
   illegitimate surveillance of journalists, human rights defenders, and
   political activists in many countries around the world.  Companies
   like FinFisher and HackingTeam have been found selling their products
   to oppressive regimes with little concern for bad human rights
   records [Collins].  While network injection attacks haven't been the
   subject of much attention, they do enable even unskilled attackers to
   perform silent and very resilient compromises, and unencrypted HTTP
   remains one of the main vehicles.

4.6.4.  XMPP

   The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), specified in
   RFC 6120, provides a standard for interactive chat messaging, and has
   evolved to encompass interoperable text, voice, and video chat.  The
   protocol is structured as a federated network of servers, similar to
   email, where users register with a local server which acts one their
   behalf to cache and relay messages.  This protocol design has many
   advantages, allowing servers to shield clients from denial of service
   and other forms of retribution for their expression, and designed to
   avoid central entities which could control the ability to communicate
   or assemble using the protocol.

   None-the-less, there are plenty of aspects of the protocol design of
   XMPP which shape the ability for users to communicate freely, and to
   assembly through the protocol.  The protocol also has facets that may
   stifle speech as users self-censor for fear of surveillance, or find
   themselves unable to express themselves naturally.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015  User Identification

   The XMPP specification dictates that clients are identified with a
   resource (node@domain/home [1] / node@domain/work [2]) to distinguish
   the conversations to specific devices.  While the protocol does not
   specify that the resource must be exposed by the client's server to
   remote users, in practice this has become the default behavior.  In
   doing so, users can be tracked by remote friends and their servers,
   who are able to monitor presence not just of the user, but of each
   individual device the user logs in with.  This has proven to be
   misleading to many users, [pidgin] since many clients only expose
   user level rather than device level presence.  Likewise, user
   invisibility so that communication can occur while users don't notify
   all buddies and other servers of their availability is not part of
   the formal protocol, and has only been added as an extension within
   the XML stream rather than enforced by the protocol.  Surveillance of Communication

   The XMPP protocol specifies the standard by which communication of
   channels may be encrypted, but it does not provide visibility to
   clients of whether their communications are encrypted on each link.
   In particular, even when both clients ensure that they have an
   encrypted connection to their XMPP server to ensure that their local
   network is unable to read or disrupt the messages they send, the
   protocol does not provide visibility into the encryption status
   between the two servers.  As such, clients may be subject to
   selective disruption of communications by an intermediate network
   which disrupts communications based on keywords found through Deep
   Packet Inspection.  While many operators have commited to only
   establishing encrypted links from their servers in recognition of
   this vulnerability, it remains impossible for users to audit this
   behavior and is not required by the protocol [xmppmanifesto].

   In particular, section 13.14 of the protocol specification [RFC6120]
   explicitly acknowledges the existence of a downgrade attack where an
   adversary controlling an intermediate network can force the inter
   domain federation between servers to revert to a non-encrypted
   protocol were selective messages can then be disrupted.  Group Chat Limitations

   Group chat in the XMPP protocol is defined as an extension within the
   XML specification of the XMPP protocol (https://xmpp.org/extensions/
   xep-0045.html).  However, it is not encoded or required at a protocol
   level, and not uniformly implemented by clients.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   The design of multi-user chat in the XMPP protocol suffers from
   extending a protocol that was not designed with assembly of many
   users in mind.  In particular, in the federated protocol provided by
   XMPP, multi-user communities are implemented with a distinguished
   'owner', who is granted control over the participants and structure
   of the conversation.

   Multi-user chat rooms are identified by a name specified on a
   specific server, so that while the overall protocol may be federated,
   the ability for users to assemble in a given community is moderated
   by a single server.  That server may block the room and prevent
   assembly unilaterally, even between two users neither of whom trust
   or use that server directly.

4.6.5.  Peer to Peer

   Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is a network architecture (defined in RFC7574) in
   which all the participant nodes are equally responsible engaged into
   the storage and dissemination of information.  A P2P network is a
   logical overlay that lives on top of the physical network, and allows
   nodes (or "peers") participating to it to establish contact and
   exchange information directly from one to each other.  The
   implementation of a P2P network may very widely: it may be structured
   or unstructured, and it may implement stronger or weaker
   cryptographic and anonymity properties.  While its most common
   application has traditionally been file-sharing (and other types of
   content delivery systems), P2P is increasingly becoming a popular
   architecture for networks and applications that require (or
   encourage) decentralization.  A prime example is Bitcoin (and similar
   cryptocurrencies), as well as Skype, Spotify and other proprietary
   multimedia applications.

   In a time of heavily centralized online services, peer-to-peer is
   often seen as an alternative, more democratic, and resistant
   architecture that displaces structures of control over data and
   communications and delegates all peers equally to be responsible for
   the functioning, integrity, and security of the data.  While in
   principle peer-to-peer remains critical to the design and development
   of future content distribution, messaging, and publishing systems, it
   poses numerous security and privacy challenges which are mostly
   delegated to individual developers to recognize, analyze, and solve
   in each implementation of a given P2P network.  Network Poisoning

   Since content, and in some occasions peer lists, are safeguarded and
   distributed by its members, P2P networks are prone to what are
   generally defined as "poisoning attacks".  Poisoning attacks might be

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   directed directly at the data that is being distributed, for example
   by intentionally corrupting it, or at the index tables used to
   instruct the peers where to fetch the data, or at routing tables,
   with the attempt of providing connecting peers with lists of rogue or
   non-existing peers, with the intention to effectively cause a Denial
   of Service on the network.  Throttling

   Peer-to-Peer traffic (and BitTorrent in particular) represents a high
   percentage of global Internet traffic and it has become increasingly
   popular for Internet Service Providers to perform throttling of
   customers lines in order to limit bandwidth usage [torrentfreak1] and
   sometimes probably as an effect of the ongoing conflict between
   copyright holders and file-sharing communities [wikileaks].

   Throttling the peer-to-peer traffic makes some uses of P2P networks
   ineffective and it might be coupled with stricter inspection of
   users' Internet traffic through Deep Packet Inspection techniques
   which might pose additional security and privacy risks.  Tracking and Identification

   One of the fundamental and most problematic issues with traditional
   peer-to-peer networks is a complete lack of anonymization of its
   users.  For example, in the case of BitTorrent, all peers' IP
   addresses are openly available to the other peers.  This has lead to
   an ever-increasing tracking of peer-to-peer and file-sharing users
   [ars].  As the geographical location of the user is directly exposed,
   and so could be his identity, the user might become target of
   additional harassment and attacks, being of physical or legal nature.
   For example, it is known that in Germany lawfirms have made extensive
   use of peer-to-peer and file-sharing tracking systems in order to
   identify downloaders and initiate legal actions looking for
   compensations [torrentfreak2].

   It is worth nothing that there are varieties of P2P networks that
   implement cryptographic practices and that introduce anonymization of
   its users.  Such implementations proved to be successful in resisting
   censorship of content, and tracking of the network peers.  A primary
   example is FreeNet [freenet1], a free software application designed
   to significantly increase the difficulty of users and content
   identification, and dedicated to foster freedom of speech online

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015  Sybil Attacks

   In open-membership P2P networks, a single attacker can pretend to be
   many participants, typically by creating multiple fake identities of
   whatever kind the P2P network uses [Douceur].  Attackers can use
   Sybil attacks to bias choices the P2P network makes collectively
   toward the attacker's advantage, e.g., by making it more likely that
   a particular data item (or some threshold of the replicas or shares
   of a data item) are assigned to attacker-controlled participants.  If
   the P2P network implements any voting, moderation, or peer review-
   like functionality, Sybil attacks may be used to "stuff the ballots"
   toward the attacker's benefit.  Companies and governments can use
   Sybil attacks on discussion-oriented P2P systems for "astroturfing"
   or creating the appearance of mass grassroots support for some
   position where there is none in reality.  Conclusions

   Encrypted P2P and Anonymous P2P networks already emerged and provided
   viable platforms for sharing material, publish content anonymously,
   and communicate securely [bitmessage].  If adopted at large, well-
   designed and resistant P2P networks might represent a critical
   component of a futuresecure and distributed Internet, enabling
   freedom of speech and freedom of information at scale.

4.6.6.  Virtual Private Network  Introduction

   A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a point-to-point connection that
   enables two computers to communicate over an encrypted tunnel.  There
   are multiple implementations and protocols used in provisioning a
   VPN, and they generally diversify by encryption protocol or
   particular requirements, most commonly in proprietary and enterprise
   solutions.  VPNs are used commonly either to enable some devices to
   communicate through peculiar network configurations, or in order to
   use some privacy and security properties in order to protect the
   traffic generated by the end user; or both.  VPNs have also become a
   very popular technology among human rights defenders, dissidents, and
   journalists worldwide to avoid local illegitimate wiretapping and
   eventually also to circumvent censorship.  Among human rights
   defenders VPNs are often debated as a potential alternative to Tor or
   other anonymous networks.  Such comparison is mislead, as some of the
   privacy and security properties of VPNs are often misunderstood by
   less tech-savvy users, which could ultimately lead to unintended

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   As VPNs increased in popularity, commercial VPN providers have
   started growing in business and are very commonly picked by human
   rights defenders and people at risk, as they are normally provided
   with an easy-to-use service and sometimes even custom applications to
   establish the VPN tunnel.  Not being able to control the
   configuration of the network, and even less so the security of the
   application, assessing the general privacy and security state of
   common VPNs is very hard.  Often such services have been discovered
   leaking information, and their custom applications have been found
   flawed.  While Tor and similar networks receive a lot of scrutiny
   from the public and the academic community, commercial or non-
   commercial VPN networks are way less analyzed and understood, and it
   might be valuable to establish some standards to guarantee a minimal
   level of privacy and security to those who need them the most.  False sense of Anonymity

   One of the common misconception among users of VPNs is the level of
   anonymity VPN can provide.  This sense of anonymity can be betrayed
   by a number of attacks or misconfugrations of the VPN provider.  It
   is important to remember that, contrarily to Tor and similar systems,
   VPN was not designed to provide anonymity properties.  From a
   technical point of view, the VPN might leak identifiable information,
   or might be subject of correlation attacks that could expose the
   originating address of the connecting user.  Most importantly, it is
   vital to understand that commercial and non-commercial VPN providers
   are bound by the law of the jurisdiction they reside in or in which
   their infrastructure is located, and they might be legally forced to
   turn over data of specific users if legal investigations or
   intelligence requirements dictate so.  In such cases, if the VPN
   providers retain logs, it is possible that the information of the
   user is provided to the user's adversary and leads to his or her
   identification.  Logging

   With VPN being point-to-point connections, the service providers are
   in fact able to observe the original location of the connecting users
   and they are able to track at what time they started their session
   and eventually also to which destinations they're trying to connect
   to.  If the VPN providers retain logs for long enough, they might be
   forced to turn over the relevant data or they might be otherwise
   compromised, leading to the same data getting exposed.  A clear log
   retaining policy could be enforced, but considering that countries
   enforce very different levels of data retention policies, VPN
   providers should at least be transparent on what information do they
   store and for how long is being kept.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015  3rd Party Hosting

   VPN providers very commonly rely on 3rd parties to provision the
   infrastructure that is later going to be used to run VPN endpoints.
   For example, they might rely on external dedicated server hosting
   providers, or on uplink providers.  In those cases, even if the VPN
   provider itself isn't retaining any significant logs, the information
   on the connecting users might be retained by those 3rd parties
   instead, introducing an additional collection point for the
   adversary.  IPv6 Leakage

   Some studies proved that several commercial VPN providers and
   applications suffer of critical leakage of information through IPv6
   due to improper support and configuration [PETS2015VPN].  This is
   generally caused by a lack of proper configuration of the client's
   IPv6 routing tables.  Considering that most popular browsers and
   similar applications have been supporting IPv6 by default, if the
   host is provided with a functional IPv6 configuration, the traffic
   that is generated might be leaked if the VPN application isn't
   designed to manipulate such traffic properly.  DNS Leakage

   Similarly, VPN services that aren't handling DNS requests and are not
   running DNS servers of their own, might be prone to DNS leaking which
   might not only expose sensitive information on the activity of the
   user, but could also potentially lead to DNS hijacking attacks and
   following compromises.  Traffic Correlation

   As revelations of mass surveillance have been growing in the press,
   additional details on attacks on secure Internet communications have
   come to the public's attention.  Among these, VPN appeared to be a
   very interesting target for attacks and collectiong efforts.  Some
   implementations of VPN appear to be particularly vulnerable to
   identification and collection of key exchanges which, some Snowden
   documents revealed, are systematically collected and stored for
   future reference.  The ability of an adversary to monitor network
   connections at many different points over the Internet, can allow
   them to perform traffic correlation attacks and identify the origin
   of certain VPN traffic by cross referencing the connection time of
   the user to the endpoint and the connection time of the endpoint to
   the final destination.  These types of attacks, although very
   expensive and normally only performed by very resourceful
   adversaries, have been documented [spiegel] to be already in practice

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   and could completely vanify the use of a VPN and ultimately expose
   the activity and the identity of a user at risk.

5.  Next Steps of the Methodology still to be applied

5.1.  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 mentioned 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

   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.  Acknowledgements

   Special thanks to all members of the hrpc RG who contributed to this
   draft.  The following deserve a special mention: Stephane Bortzmeyer,
   dkg and Tim Sammut.

8.  Security Considerations

   As this draft concerns a research document, there are no security

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

10.  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
   [3].  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-

11.  References

11.1.  Informative References

              Appelbaum, J., Gibson, A., Kabish, V., Kampf, L., and L.
              Ryge, "NSA targets the privacy-conscious", 2015,

   [Collins]  Collins, K., "Hacking Team's oppressive regimes customer
              list revealed in hack", 2015,

   [Douceur]  Douceur, J., "The Sybil Attack", 2002,

              Google, ., "Method and device for network traffic
              manipulation", 2012, <https://www.google.com/patents/

              ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and D. Gillmor, "Human Rights
              Protocol Considerations Glossary", 2015,

   [Haagsma]  Haagsma, L., "Deep dive into QUANTUM INSERT", 2015,

   [ID]       ten Oever, N., Doria, A., and J. Varon, "Proposal for
              research on human rights protocol considerations", 2015,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   [Marcak]   Marcak, B., Weaver, N., Dalek, J., Ensafi, R., Fifield,
              D., McKune, S., Rey, A., Scott-Railton, J., Deibert, R.,
              and V. Paxson, "China's Great Fire Cannon", 2015,

              Marquis-Boire, M., "Schrodinger's Cat Video and the Death
              of Clear-Text", 2014, <https://citizenlab.org/2014/08/cat-

              Pera, V., Barbera, M., Tyson, G., Haddadi, H., and A. Mei,
              "A Glance through the VPN Looking Glass", 2015,

              Peterson, A., Gellman, B., and A. Soltani, "Yahoo to make
              SSL encryption the default for Webmail users. Finally.",
              2013, <http://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2010/01/

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI
              10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,

   [RFC0894]  Hornig, C., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
              Datagrams over Ethernet Networks", STD 41, RFC 894, DOI
              10.17487/RFC0894, April 1984,

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1631]  Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, DOI 10.17487/RFC1631, May
              1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1631>.

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,

   [RFC1984]  IAB and , "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
              Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984, DOI
              10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2639]  Hastings, T. and C. Manros, "Internet Printing
              Protocol/1.0: Implementer's Guide", RFC 2639, DOI
              10.17487/RFC2639, July 1999,

   [RFC2919]  Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
              and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
              RFC 2919, DOI 10.17487/RFC2919, March 2001,

   [RFC3365]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61, RFC
              3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,

   [RFC3724]  Kempf, J., Austein., R., Ed., and IAB, "The Rise of the
              Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the
              Evolution of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724, DOI
              10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004,

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
              4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,

   [RFC4906]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., and N. El-Aawar, Ed.,
              "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS", RFC 4906, DOI
              10.17487/RFC4906, June 2007,

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC5891, August 2010,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   [RFC5892]  Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
              Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 5892, DOI 10.17487/RFC5892, August 2010,

   [RFC5893]  Alvestrand, H., Ed. and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts
              for Internationalized Domain Names for Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 5893, DOI 10.17487/RFC5893, August 2010,

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
              March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.

   [RFC6162]  Turner, S., "Elliptic Curve Algorithms for Cryptographic
              Message Syntax (CMS) Asymmetric Key Package Content Type",
              RFC 6162, DOI 10.17487/RFC6162, April 2011,

   [RFC6783]  Levine, J. and R. Gellens, "Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII
              Addresses", RFC 6783, DOI 10.17487/RFC6783, 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, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC
              7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,

   [RFC7236]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,

   [RFC7237]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Method Registrations", RFC 7237, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,
              June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [RFC7626]  Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Privacy Considerations", RFC 7626,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015,

   [RSF]      RSF, ., "Syria using 34 Blue Coat Servers to spy on
              Internet users", 2013, <https://en.rsf.org/syria-syria-

   [Rideout]  Rideout, A., "Making security easier", 2008,

              Schillace, S., "Default https access for Gmail", 2010,

              Schneier, B., "Attacking Tor - how the NSA targets users'
              online anonymity", 2013,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   [UDHR]     United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
              Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,

   [ars]      Anderson, N., "P2P researchers - use a blocklist or you
              will be tracked... 100% of the time", 2007,

              BBC, "Whistle-blower site taken offline", 2008,

              Bitmessage, "Bitmessage Wiki?", 2014,

   [caida]    Dainotti, A., Squarcella, C., Aben, E., Claffy, K.,
              Chiesa, M., Russo, M., and A. Pescape, "Analysis of
              Country-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship", 2013,

              Hall, J., Aaron, M., and B. Jones, "A Survey of Worldwide
              Censorship Techniques", 2015,

              Freenet, "What is Freenet?", n.d.,

              Ian Clarke, ., "The Philosphy behind Freenet?", n.d.,

              Anonymous, ., "Towards a Comprehensive Picture of the
              Great Firewall's DNS Censorship", 2014,

              Namecoin, "Namecoin - Decentralized secure names", 2015,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

              Maier, G., Schneider, F., and A. Feldmann, "NAT usage in
              Residential Broadband networks", 2011,

   [pidgin]   js, . and Pidgin Developers, "-XMPP- Invisible mode
              violating standard", July 2015,

   [quic]     The Chromium Project, "QUIC, a multiplexed stream
              transport over UDP", 2014, <https://www.chromium.org/

   [spdy]     The Chromium Project, "SPDY - An experimental protocol for
              a faster web", 2009, <https://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-

   [spiegel]  SPIEGEL, "Prying Eyes - Inside the NSA's War on Internet
              Security", 2014,

   [techyum]  Violet, ., "Official - vb.ly Link Shortener Seized by
              Libyan Government", 2010, <http://techyum.com/2010/10/

              The Tor Project, ., "Tor Project - Anonymity Online",
              2007, <https://www.torproject.org/>.

              Van der Sar, E., "Proposal for research on human rights
              protocol considerations", 2015, <https://torrentfreak.com/

              Andy, ., "LAWYERS SENT 109,000 PIRACY THREATS IN GERMANY
              DURING 2013", 2014, <https://torrentfreak.com/lawyers-

   [turkey]   Akguel, M. and M. Kirlido&#287;, "Internet censorship in
              Turkey", 2015,

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

              Vasilis, V., Kargiotakis, G., Filasto, A., Fabian, B., and
              A. Alexandros, "Understanding Internet Censorship Policy -
              The Case of Greece", 2015,

              Sladek, T. and E. Broese, "Market Survey - Detection &
              Filtering Solutions to Identify File Transfer of Copyright
              Protected Content for Warner Bros. and movielabs", 2011,

              Saint-Andre, P. and . XMPP Operators, "A Public Statement
              Regarding Ubiquitous Encryption on the XMPP Network",

11.2.  URIs

   [1] mailto:node@domain/home

   [2] mailto:node@domain/work

   [3] mailto:hrpc@ietf.org

Authors' Addresses

   Joana Varon
   Coding Rights

   EMail: joana@codingrights.org

   Niels ten Oever

   EMail: niels@article19.org

   Claudio Guarnieri
   Centre for Internet and Human Rights

   EMail: nex@nex.sx

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                    hrpcm                    December 2015

   Will Scott
   University of Washington

   EMail: wrs@cs.washington.edu

   Corinne Cath
   Oxford Internet Institute

   EMail: corinne.cath@oii.ox.ac.uk

Varon, et al.             Expires June 6, 2016                 [Page 34]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/