►
From YouTube: IETF92-HRPC-20150327-1150
Description
HRPC meeting session at IETF92
2015/03/27 1150
A
B
C
Hello,
everyone,
hello,
the
microphone,
yeah
I,
think
it
works.
Hello
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
all
to
to
the
first
session
of
the
human
rights
considerations,
research,
a
proposed
research
group
in
the
framework
of
the
of
the
IRT
f.
This
is
the
first
time
that
I'm
chairing
a
research
group.
So
if
something
is
radically
going
wrong,
please
feel
free
to
correct
me,
so
we
can
have
a
session
together.
All
the
better
I
wanted
to
start
off.
By
asking
for
people
we
found
some,
we
found
a
jabber
scribe.
Would
someone
also
be
interested
to
take
notes?
C
You'll
be
rewarded,
then,
let's
quickly
establish
the
agenda.
If
someone
has
extra
points
for
amendments,
I'd
be
very
happy
to
hear
them.
We'll
start
off
with
the
agenda
bashing,
we
got
the
Jeffers
tribe.
We
got
no
takers,
go
to
the
note
well
do
the
introduction
goes
through
the
status
of
the
proposed
research
group
drove
the
context
of
the
research.
Do
the
discussion
of
the
draft
see
what
the
next
steps
are
see
if
there
are
other
than
other
relevant
research
issues
of
topics
and
have
an
overall
discussion?
C
Nonetheless,
I
would
ask
you
not
to
wait
with
your
questions
and
comments
until
the
end?
Let's
do
it
rolling
and
please
go
up
to
the
mic.
If
there
is
anything
that
you'd
like
to
react
to
earth
anything
is
unclear.
Let's
try
to
make
this
session
as
interactive
as
possible,
so
the
nose
well
any
submission
to
the
IETF
intended
by
the
contributor
for
publication
is
all
a
part
of
my
ETF
internet-draft
RFC
and
any
statement
made
within
the
context
of
an
ietf
activity
is
considered.
C
E
Hello:
everyone,
I'm
Joe,
Navarro,
I'm,
a
researcher
on
internet
rights
in
Brazil.
So
far
since,
in
27
of
October
last
year
we
published
the
first
internet-draft
Human
Rights
protocols,
considerations.
Let
me
presented
it
in
a
SAG
session
during
ITF
in
Hawaii,
after
that
we
updated
before
the
session
here
and
also
did
a
proposal
for
research
working
group
in
I
art.
Yet
during
these
ideas
we
have
been
interviewing
members
for
the
from
the
community
also
to
to
feed
on
our
research.
C
C
Some
people
would
say
that
the
technology
reflects
the
people
who
builds
the
internet
in
the
first
place,
and
there
are
leads
in
certain
drafts
that
would
say
that
there
are
values
embedded
such
as
RFC
1958,
which
said
that
the
internet
aims
to
be
the
global
network
of
networks,
life,
unfettered
connectivity
for
all
users
at
all
time
for
any
Content.
That
sounds
quite
a
lot
of
variety
of
freedom
of
expression,
as
expressed
article
19
of
the
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights.
C
On
the
other
hand,
one
could
also
easily
have
a
more
engineering
perspective
to
the
issue
and
see
that
the
internet
came
about
as
a
solution
to
technical
problems
and
then
the
internet,
as
it
is
now
somehow
became
a
happy
accident,
and
this
is
what
we
want
to
research
and
understand
so,
but
at
the
scale
and
the
initialization
of
the
internet
has
grown
greatly.
The
influence
of
the
potential
initial
world's
use
started
to
compete
with
other
values,
and
one
could
attribute
this
to
industrialization,
but
perhaps
also
to
a
grown
interest
of
governments
around
the
world.
F
E
On
the
other
hand,
we
were
inspired
by
the
work
on
privacy
and
the
privacy
considerations,
and
we
think
we
can
move
forward
and
think
about
other
human
rights
to
do
this
similar
exercise.
So
we
are
not
going
to
in
the
this
research
first
step,
so
focusing
all
the
human
rights
itself
to
focus
on
freedom
of
expression
and
freedom
of
association.
E
So
we
try
to
design
I
parties
it
to
test
hypotheses
throughout
the
research
and
we
departure
from
this
problem
statement
that
considers
that
they
see
diseases
enabling
characteristics
of
the
internet,
which
are
also
human
rights,
enabling
character
is,
might
be
degraded
and
if
they
are
not
properly
defined,
described
and
protected.
And
if
that
doesn't
happen,
this
might
result
in
a
loss
of
functionality
and
connectivity
of
the
internet.
So
we
are
trying
to
frame
the
rights
debate
on
on
freedom
of
expression.
C
This
is
the
this
is
the
challenge
that
we
are
for,
so
our
approach
also
has
been
to
read
RFC's
and
to
see
what
conceptions
there
are
about
technical
product
technical
concepts
that
would
enable
these
rights.
So
we
came
across
a
lot
of
architectural
principles.
Now
we've
been
thinking
about
a
technical
translation
of
user
rights
concepts,
and
then
we
see
where
these
two
could
converge
and
currently
we're
thinking
that
these
concepts
could
be
the
basis
of
that.
C
So
thinking
of
interoperability,
a
distributed
architecture,
the
end-to-end
principle,
reliability,
resilience
permission
as
innovation,
transparency,
data,
minimization,
graceful
degradation,
connectivity,
innovation
at
the
edges
and
content,
an
application
agnostic
there.
Of
course,
a
lot
of
architectural
principles
that
maybe
not
necessarily
impact
users
right
and
an
example
could
perhaps
be
the
good
enough
principle
and
of
course,
there
are
also
a
lot
of
user
rights
concepts
that
do
not
necessarily
focus
on
architecture,
so
they
are
not
necessarily
the
best
platform
to
be
discussed
in
the
IETF,
such
as
sumer
protection.
E
So
we
frame
some
research
questions
to
address
the
first
one
we
are
starting
to
to
grasp
by
those
mappings
of
concepts.
So
it
is,
are
the
relations
between
protocols
and
the
human
rights
of
freedom
of
expression
and
Association,
and
what
should
be
those
relations?
A
next
step
would
be
to
think
if
the
limitations
of
freedom
of
expression,
conceived
in
the
previous
step
of
these
technical
concepts
can
lead
to
a
degradation
of
internet
functionalities.
If
so,
how
and
how
can
we
protect
this,
enabling
Rights
environment
and
safeguard
the
Internet
infrastructure
of
future
protocols,
development.
C
So
this
is
quite
a
long.
Listen
I
will
not
go
through
all
that
eh.
There
is
a
link
in
the
presentation
that
you
can
download
where
we
try
to
map
the
rfcs
based
on
their
relevance.
We
started
out
with
with
protocols
and
standards
that
we
thoughts
are
relevant
to
freedom
of
expression
and
Association.
So
we
started
with
rfcs
focusing
on
architecture,
on
transparency
on
mailing
lists,
because
the
premise
was
that
they
enable
in
a
distributed
way
a
free
freedom
of
association
and
collaboration
HTTP,
because
it's
been
quite
crucial.
E
C
So
this
is
a
this
is
the
list
that
we
recurrently
think
of
that
could
enable
these
these
concepts
have
a
look
at
it.
All
all
your
comments,
and
this
would
be
extremely
welcome,
so
we're
thinking
of
the
importance
of
connectivity,
connectivity,
distributed
architecture,
interoperability,
reliability,
scalability,
preferring
stateless
over
States,
full
content,
agnosticism,
transparent
network
options
for
debugging
or
robust
network
and
end
user
centric
network
with
graceful
failures,
a
graceful
degradation,
partial
healing,
delayed
tolerance
and
data
minimization
and
compression.
But
these
concepts
are
which
are
working.
C
Assumptions
will
function
as
considerations
for
the
analysis
of
other
RFC's,
which
will
be
further
described
piece
of
either
impacts
on
human
rights
and,
if
one
would
try
to
make
it
in
a
bit
more
consumable
fashion
than
it
could
look
like
this,
that
freedom
of
expression
is
content.
Tech
nos
the
system
plus
connectivity
plus
privacy,
and
if
we
would
try
to
add
a
bit
on
that
concept,
it
could
look
like
this,
where
we
would
have
freedom
of
association,
which
is
the
concepts
of
freedom
of
expression,
plus
interoperable
protocols,
a
distributed
architecture,
decentralized
protocols,
robustness
and
resilience.
C
G
G
On
particular
topics,
or
do
you
want
to
wait
until
the
end,
all
right,
I'm
and
Ursula
Van?
It
seems
to
me
that
this
that
this
approach
conflates
certain
positive
rights
and
negative
rights
and
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
you
know.
For
instance,
resilience
here
seems
to
seems
to
require
that
the
connection
remain
up
and
so
on
or
distributed.
Architecture
seems
to
Iran
seems
you
require
that
you've
got
this
sort
of
everywhere
and
that
it's
available
to
everyone
which.
C
G
Well,
I'm,
sorry,
it
seems
like,
for
instance,
the
the
distributed
architecture
requires
that
on
things
we
sort
of
spread
around
and
available
to
everyone
on,
but
more
importantly,
the
robustness
and
resilience
here
seems
to
suggest
that
the
the
connection
needs
to
remain
up.
That's
a
positive
right!
That's
right!
You
maintain
the
connection
which
is
different
from
the
arm
from
the
privacy
and
content
agnosticism,
which
is
just
you're
not
going
to
prevent
this.
You
know
the
the
sort
of
negative
rights
case,
it'd,
probably
be
really
useful.
G
A
Hi
Dave
Crocker-
this
is
fascinating
and
I
I
would
agree
with
what
you
were
just
saying
before
Andrew
got
up
that
those
additional
items
fall
under
connectivity.
I
think
they
do
that
naturally,
and
I
think
that
the
list
of
three
in
that
you
originally
presented
up
the
top,
there
is
much
more
powerful
lists
of
three
always
are
more
powerful
than
lists
of
ten
or
whatever.
But
in
fact
that
my
intuition
is
this
is
the
right
list
to
show
people
and
they're?
Each
of
them
is
deep
in
their
way.
A
I
think
andruw's
point
about
a
permit
of
capabilities
versus
passive.
The
ones
that
take
effort
to
provide
and
the
ones
in
which
you
don't
want
things
to
get
in
the
way
is
a
really
useful
distinction.
I
have
a
pro
forma
question
that,
given
my
own
background,
I
have
to
ask
back
a
couple
slides
one
more
there
that
one
seems
to
me.
You
short
changed
email
by
only
listing
mail
lists.
A
Openpgp
is
in
a
packaging
standard
for
content
and
it's
important,
but
it's
a
it's
probably
in
the
right
place,
but
it
just
seems
to
me
the
ability
to
get
a
bilateral
or
small
group,
in
particular
ad
hoc
small
groups,
spontaneous
small
groups,
but
also
just
pairwise
connection.
That's
what
what
email
will
will
accomplish,
that
mailing
lists
aren't
designed
for
and
I
would
expect
it
to
be
an
integral
part
of
what
you're
looking
to
achieve,
but
as
an
exercise,
this
is
just
fascinating,
I'm
really
enjoying
it.
A
C
You
very
much-
and
I
can
tell
you
that
email
will
be
edit
so
and
and
I
I
have
one
question
back
if
possible,
and
that
is
perhaps
this
this
this
definition
would
work
quite
well
because
there's
a
quite
high
level
of
abstraction.
So
would
you
also
say
that
we
would
need
to
define
content,
agnosticism
and
and
connectivity
and
privacy
in
a
far
more
detailed
way
for
it
to
be
more
meaningful,
so
that
it
would
more
look
more
like
this,
that
there
is
a
sub
definition
of
all
these
things.
H
I
You
very
much
yep
juan
carlos
swinging.
First,
just
expending
a
little
bit
on
this
since
we've
been
running
this
privacy
trial
in
the
privacy
topic
has
been
going
on
and
on
something's.
Also
to
take
into
account
is
that
privacy
is
not
about
hiding
everything.
If
the
user
is
willing
to
disclose
information,
that's
perfectly
fine.
A
protocol
shoot
also
allowed
that
right.
So
so
it's
not
just
the
fact
of
preventing,
but
having
the
the
basically
information
for
the
user
to
take
the
informed
decision
of
what
is
going
to
happen
with
his
personal
information.
I
That's
that's
regarding
the
privacy
part
now
for
the
for
my
actual
question
here
is
and
apologize
if
this
was
discussed
earlier,
because
I
stepped
in
the
middle
of
the
meeting,
but
I
think
I've
kind
of
understand
and
I
agree
with
this
systematic
approach
to
taking
a
look
at.
You
know
this
human
rights
issue
when
coming
back
to
protocol,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
this
is
research
and
engineering
wait.
So
so
we
do
have
to
take
a
systematic
approach
for
the
next
slide
and
I
should
say
for
the
freedom
of
expression.
I
I
How
can
I
actually
define
this
problem
because
expressing
to
me
it's
a
one-way
protocol,
where
I
need
to
have
a
transmitter
and
a
receiver
and
that's
fine,
the
freedom
of
association
and
assembly,
it's
not
necessarily
a
two
way
or
one
way
protocol,
meaning
that
right
now
we
are
assembling
here
are
a
bunch
of
people,
but
it's
only
few
of
us
that
are
talking
the
rest
are
just
listening.
So
is
this
considered?
You
know
the
fact
that
I
don't
participate
in
the
discussion
and
still
am
part
of
this
group.
I
Is
this
considered
Association,
because
I
would
need
to
translate
that
into
protocols
right
am
I
in
a
virtual
world?
Just
listening
is
that
what
does
that
make
me
part
of
the
of
the
Association
and
assembly
of
this
group
as
because
you
are
on
part
of
a
mailing
list,
even
if
I'm
not
contributing
to
the
mailing
list?
You
know
so
that
that
part.
For
me,
it's
been
to
make
it
more
systematic
and
engineering
terms.
I
would
need
to
please
get
some
clarification
on
how
we
can
define
the
freedom
of
association
and
assembly
in
a
virtual
world.
I
C
Like
to
respond
directly
to
your
to
your
tooth
point
and
I'll
start
with
the
with
the
last
one
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
go
back
a
while
and
and
think
about
what
radio?
What's
what
better
breath
chat
about
radio
in
19
80,
and
he
said
that
the
potential
of
radio
could
only
be
fully
fulfilled
if
the
audience
would
be
able
to
talk
back,
and
that
seems
something
that
we
have
been
able
to
to
achieve
with
a
variety
of
protocols
on
the
internet.
So
I
do
not
think
necessarily.
C
Everyone
needs
to
talk
all
the
time
to
be
able
to
have
an
assembly.
Actually,
that
would
probably
be
a
real
messy
assembly
if
we
would
all
start
talking
at
the
same
time.
So
it
I
think
it's
the
potential
for
people
to
organize
together
and
to
express
their
opinion
and
to
to
collaborate.
So
so
it
would
probably
be
something.
I
But,
but
for
the
radio
example
you
could
I
mean
you
could
think
that
people
could
not
talk
back
on
the
actual
radio
right.
They've
could
write
pamphlets
or
they
could
send
letters.
So
they
could
talk
on
the
street,
but
the
information
that
the
radio
distributed
was
a
broadcast
media
that
did
not
have
a
exactly.
C
Channel
and
it
was
the
problem
with
radio,
and
so
that
seems
like
right
now.
People
are
able
to
talk
back
so
need
to
look
at
protocols
that
enable
people
to
to
talk
back,
make
decisions
have
discussions,
and
that
would
be
then
the
infrastructure
that
would
enable
freedom
of
assembly
and
freedom
of
association.
C
Ok,
on
your
email,
sir,
on
your
own
you're
on
your
other
issue
about
privacy
and
transparency.
That's
why
transparency
is
in
the
list,
because
we
really
like
that
users
and
implements
and
developers
understand
the
consequences
of
implementing
a
certain
protocol,
and
that
is
understood
indeed,
which
information
is
leaked
or
given
away
and
are
advertised
in
which
is
not
so
will
definitely
work
on
that
as
well.
Look
at
very
much.
C
D
Reham
the
center,
when
discussing
architectural
implications
of
rights,
there
are
rights
of
freedom,
but
there
are
other
rights
also
that
might
impinge
on
the
freedom
of
expression,
the
right
to
have
a
copyright,
the
right
to
be
forgotten,
the
right
to
be
free
from
cyber
bullying
or
slander,
and
I
was
looking
for
some
mention
of
these
countervailing
forces
in
the
architectural
implications
of
living
in
a
world
where
you
have
to
balance
one
set
of
rights
against
another
as
as
being
important
consideration
for
the
group.
So
if
you
could
address
that,
please.
F
Swallow
the
mic
on
fred
baker,
so
this
definition
in
the
term,
freedom
of
association
or
freedom
of
assembly.
I
don't
think
they
go
together.
Ok,
that's
an
interesting
definition
or
something,
but
freedom
of
association
or
freedom
of
assembly
is
the
freedom
to
come
into
a
room
like
this
or
in
some
equivalent
way
to
be
associated
with
each
other.
So
I
would
think
of
freedom
of
association
as
being
about
being
able
to
endure
the
mailing
list
or
having
friends
on
Facebook
or
something
like
that.
H
Lagarde
Leveson
I
was
just
going
to
add
up
to
that
freedom
of
association.
That
concept
is
historically
classified
as
the
ability
to
be
in
this
room
without
the
mere
fact
that
we're
in
this
room
causing
us
to
be
cast
with
suspicion,
so
the
ability
to
listen
to
other
people's
ideas
and
receive
them
without
just
the
fact
that
I'm
listening
make
me
a
suspect.
A
Dave
Crocker
one
or
two
slides
back
that
one.
That's
a
long,
interesting
list
and
for
a
slide,
that's
you
need
just
those
words
up
there.
Have
you
written
explanations
for
the
reasons
each
of
those
are
individually
are
important
and
by
the
way,
what
the
arguments
against
them
might
be.
I
think
that
discussion
that
justifies
both
arguments
against
and
arguments
for
each
of
these
items
will
help
people
consider
them
more
carefully
and
possibly
end
up
allowing
the
list
to
be
made
shorter
or
maybe
longer.
D
Hi
Daniel
con
Gilmore
dkg,
so
to
comment
on
ladders
point
I
think,
the
the
freedom
of
association.
I
actually
think
that
in
some
cases
the
privacy
issue
is
maybe
even
more
relevant
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
trying
to
it's
at
least
as
relevant
for
freedom
of
association
as
it
is
for
freedom
of
expression.
So
if
you
go
back
and
look
at
the
freedom
of
association
list,
it's
not
about
Prai,
it's
not
just
about
privacy,
for
freedom
of
expression,
concretely
that
privacy
has
to
do
with
who
you
associate
with
that's
that's
a
critical
element.
B
C
C
C
My
expression
ends
where
your
privacy
starts
and
vice
versa,
and
we
have
developed
ways
to
to
balance
those
rights,
but
then
it
would
also
be
interesting
to
have
the
technical
translations
for
for
balancing
so
that
we,
when
we
make
these
choices
we
make
well
intended
choices
and
that
for
the
implementer
developer
and
user,
it's
also
clear
what
these
implications
are.
So
when
they
use
a
protocol
implemented,
it's
very
clear,
what's
happening
on
the
wire
or
always
there
with
application.
C
We
had
then
about
the
single
mentioned
concepts,
a
number
of
them.
We
have
defined
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
in
our
ID,
but
definitely
more
work
needs
to
be
done
there
and
I
think
indeeds.
The
approach
to
come
with
arguments
pro
and
con
every
is
a
very
useful
addition
as
well
also
metaphor:
the
methodology-
that's
that's
excellent,.
E
I'm,
just
a
nose,
I
think,
but
the
initial
discussions
we
could
see
that
the
even
the
definition
of
freedom
of
association
is
not
that
clear
in
the
human
rights
declaration.
So
maybe
should
go
back
to
the
debate
on
on
the
social
political
context
of
death
to
to
go
to
the
other
size
of
the
translations
as
well.
So
I
think
there'll
be
a
follow.
Steppin
on
this
debate,.
C
Yes,
Fred
said
he
mentioned
the
mailing
list
as
an
example
of
freedom
of
association.
Well,
that
was
exactly
why
we
also
started
off
reading
rfcs
about
mailing
lists.
We
ended
up
here,
but
apparently
the
link
between
those
two
is
not
clear.
So
we
need
to
do
more
work
on
that
and
we
will
be
doing
that
and.
B
J
Justin,
richer
I
was
wondering
if
you
guys
were
planning
on
differentiating
between
exploitations
that
are
happening
as
a
result
of
the
protocol
running
as
designed,
and
the
protocol
not
are
being
like
twisted
and
exploited
or
deployed
incorrectly
or
what
have
avoided.
Thank
you.
That
is
a
very
good
verb
in
this
case.
I
guess
no
comment.
Otherwise.
I.
J
K
Stefan
BOTS
Mia
I'm,
not
convinced
that
there
is
a
difference.
I
am
looking
things
that
we
can
see
it.
For
instance,
if
someone
to
shut
down
the
website
that
it
doesn't
like,
if
someone
is
using
a
like
a
very
simple
adidas
http
to
there
is
no
choking
it
like
use
a
q-tip
in
the
way
in
the
normal
way,
the
way
it
was
designed
the
way
it
has
even
been
said
that
it
was
it
self
expression
to
use
this
tool.
K
J
J
J
H
I
Leveson
I
was
going
to
say
letarte
Leveson
I
was
going
to
say,
I
think
it
while
not
necessarily
a
protocol.
An
excellent
example
of
perversion
might
be
the
laws
that
were
passed
about
12
years
ago,
mandating
that
every
cell
phone
that
sold
include
a
GPS
chip
so
that,
when
you
call
911
report
your
location
to
the
emergency
services
operator
and
the
perversion
would
be
activating
those
GPS
chips
remotely
so
that
you
can
track
all
of
the
people
where
they
are
in
real
time.
C
So,
in
both
your
answer
in
both
your
answers,
there
seems
to
be
a
breach
of
intentionality
of
the
protocol
mm-hmm.
We
would
need
to
watch
carefully
how
intentionality
is
defined
in
the
rfcs,
because
that's
not
necessarily
clear
in
every
RFC,
and
sometimes
innovation
also
comes
from
other
use
of
a
protocol
than
it
was
originally
intended
to
do.
Did.
F
So
let
me
clarify
my
comment:
there,
your
native
these
fred
baker,
so
your
devos
example.
If,
if
I'm
under
adidas
and
my
computer
is
madly
responding,
I
comp
you
can't
get
there
from
your
I'm,
not
speaking
I'm,
not
exercising
right
of
free
speech
and
the
fact
that
I'm
receiving
a
lot
of
packets
is
not
a
question
of
free
assembly.
F
J
Right
and
along
those
lines,
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
categorical
or
there
maybe
I
should
say
a
categorical
differentiation
that
can
be
made
between
protocols
that
have
been
being
used
exactly
as
intended
to
cause
and
therefore
cause
disruption
versus
protocols
that
are
being
used
not
as
intended,
but
in
ways
that
are
allowed
or
twisted.
Or
what
have
you
so
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
interesting
way
to
slice.
This.
A
A
And
I
found
myself
using
the
term
policies
and
procedures
as
distinct
from
protocol,
so
that
and
and
the
problem
is
saying,
policies
and
procedures
is
that's,
usually
the
operation
side
and
above
that,
there's
what
I
will
call
the
politics,
but
I
mean
that
the
polit
policy
is
probably
a
better
term
and
that
each
of
these
is
relevant.
They
are
decreasing
Lee
in
the
technical
space
but
they're
the
world
that
the
technology
gets
used
in
in
regular
use
in
non
political
situations
that
they
are
the
layers
above
layer
7,
but
we
can't
operate
without
them.
A
We
would
like
to
sometimes,
but
we
can't-
and
they
probably
factor
into
this
discussion
both
essentially
and
problematically,
essentially,
because
we
can't
operate
without
them
and
problematically
because
they
frequently
are
distracting.
They
move
us
completely
into
the
human
side
and
the
social
side,
which
is
not
the
point
of
this
exercise
as
I
understand
it,
and
quite
like
the
fact
that
you
are
focused
on
the
technical
issues
and
the
way
the
technology
enables
or
can
prevent,
and
so,
for
example,
the
pointing
out
of
abuses
such
as
DDoS
I,
think
is
also
going
to
be
useful.
G
Andrew
Sullivan,
I
I
really
don't
think
that
for
the
purposes
to
which
you're
looking
here,
the
idea
of
you
know
the
reverse
use
of
the
protocol
versus
the
appropriate
use
of
the
protocol
is
going
to
help
you
and
the
reason.
I.
Don't
think
that
is
because
this
distinction
sort
of
requires
a
tilos
for
the
protocol.
That
is
right.
There's
a
goal
for
which
the
protocol
is
is
is
being
deployed
and
I
like
the
way
you
put
it
that
you
know
there's
some
sort
of
intentionality
of
the
protocol.
That's
a
that's
a
really
hopeless
road.
G
Precisely
because
you
know
frequent,
the
protocols
are
used
in
ways
that
that
you
know
maybe
people
didn't
intend
in
the
first
place
or
so
on,
and
and
we
do
get
a
lot
of
innovation
that
way
to
focus
entirely
on
the
on
the
human
rights
consequences
of
the
protocol
itself.
Then
what
you
need
to
do
is
pay
attention
precisely
to
how
the
protocol
works,
regardless
of
how
people
intended
it
to
be
used
and
step
outside
of
that.
I
Thank
you
juan
carlos
on
you,
go
I,
think
I
pretty
much
won
a
second
and
support
the
abuse
from
around
ruin.
What
we
just
heard
from
Stephan
in
the
privacy,
for
instance,
what
just
for
the
little
bit
here
of
privacy
when
we
were
discussing
privacy
considerations?
What's
exactly
this,
if,
if
we
are
planning
to
to
add
a
new
parameter
in
our
protocol,
that
is
going
to
add
civic
location,
just
because
it's
harder
to
get
this
GPS
signals
indoors,
and
it's
going
to
make
easier
for
the
technician
to
arrive.
I
Well,
the
privacy
considerations
is
telling
me
that
the
intention
is
good,
but
actually
you
are
open
privacy,
a
huge
privacy
risk
by
sending
a
civic
address
of
a
person
over
this
protocol,
so
I
I.
Second,
that
it's
the
intention
may
be
good,
but
what
what
I
think
we
are
trying
to
do
here
by
having
these
considerations
define
is
letting
people
in
the
protocol
design
have
this
thought
process
where
they
say:
okay?
Well,
what?
I
C
E
Just
considering
this
exercise
you're
going
to
this
is
the
size
of
of
mapping
vulnerabilities.
We
need
a
lot
of
help
from
the
community
I'm,
not
an
engineer
myself
news's
the
engineer.
My
curiosity,
perhaps
so,
even
if
you
find
something
and
can
just
send
a
link
in
the
list
to
help
tremendously.
So
it's
also
a
bit
of
a
call
for
work
for
help
of
mapping
those
examples
and
yes,
the
the
next
step.
E
So
it's
it's
basically
getting
other
inputs
from
the
other
research
steps
and
in
trying
to
concretely
address
the
research
questions
as
next
steps
for
the
research
group,
we
will
continue
the
research
on
on
the
RFC's
and
concepts
and
trying
to
match
it
with
the
human
rights
concepts
on
freedom
of
expression
Association
improve.
Particularly.
We
saw
that
the
one
on
freedom
of
association-
still
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done,
we'll
continue
interviews
trying
to
map
those
cases
we
are
going
to
edit.
E
F
You
go
back
one
slide
arm
making
relationships
explicit
oftentimes
that
involves
authenticated
identity
and
from
a
human
rights
perspective.
Some
things
I've
been
involved
with
relate
to
specifically
women
in
certain
cultures
that
can
only
use
their
husbands,
computers
and
might
hide
a
facebook
account
from
their
husband
and
use
that
communication
vehicle
to
speak
and
to
assemble
and
explicitly
want
to
be
hidden
for
reasons
related
to
their
culture
and
I.
Wonder
where
making
relationships
explicit
might
in
fact
lead
to
human
rights
violations.
I.
D
I'm
Fred
I
think
you're,
talking
about
a
different
kind
of
relationship
than
this
side
is
talking
about.
I.
Think
this
side
is
talking
about
making
the
relationships
between
human
rights
protocols
exploits
and
vulnerabilities
explicit,
not
about
making
the
relationships
between
particular
humans,
explicit.
K
Lee
Howard,
my
comic
kind
of
goes
back
to
I.
Think
it's
I
think
it
was
Dave
said
earlier,
because
the
same
tools
that
can
be
used
to
suppress
rights
or
press
individuals
can
be
used
to
find
people
who
are
oppressing
individuals
and
suppressing
rights.
There
are
bad
people
in
the
world
and
I
want
to
know
that
we
can
find
ways
to
stop
them,
while
also
protecting
rights
and
that's
nearly
impossible.
I,
don't
know
how
to
do
both.
C
That
we
do
not
know
how
to
do
it
yet
might
also
be
a
reason
to
do
more
research
Yesi
how
we
could
do
it,
and
our
first
step
would
first
to
be
met.
These
different
map,
these
different
cases,
yes
and
then
come
up
with
a
detailed
analysis,
and
then
we
could
make
arguments
about
it.
So
that's
so
I
would
definitely
not
contest
what
you
say.
Actually
I
would
definitely
say
it's
convict,
so
like
I.
K
C
C
For
an
accountable
way
of
implementing
these
things,
because
what
we
also
came
across
in
in
a
lot
of
our
interviews
or
in
several
of
our
interviews,
was
that
non
technical
demands
are
sometimes
made
by
by
institutions
and
by
governments,
and
then
it's
really
hard
to
to
fit
that
in
a
technical
way.
So
if
we
would
have
a
technical
approach
and
I
understanding
that,
if
people
then
come
to
the
IETF
or
two
and
then
we
say
well,
there
are
these
options,
and
this
has
that
implication.
This
has
that
identification.
C
So
we
really
hope
that
there
will
then
get
your
insights
there
and
we
continuously
post
our
discussions
and
ideas
and
new
topic
there,
and
if
there
are
then
no
other
questions
either
from
the
scribe
or
at
the
mic,
then
I
think
we're
done
with
this
session
and
I
would
like
to
thank
you
very
much
for
your
attention
and
for
your
attending
this
session.
Thank
you
very
much
as
everyone
filled
in
the
the
blue
sheets,
blue
sheets,.