|
Hi John, I strongly agree, and would go further. As I see it, the HRPC suffers fundamental problems from both
participation and its charter. The charter itself, in my opinion, displays a facile
understanding of human rights. It includes the statement:
* To expose the relation between protocols and human rights, with a focus on That belies the need to balance rights contained in frameworks
such as the UDHR, as you and others including myself have
repeatedly noted. We have largely been ignored. The poor
interdisciplinary composition of the group as well as its sole
output reflects this regrettable constraint. In this latest debacle, a position was put forth that is largely
unsubstantiated. The only research I as a layperson have found
finds that harm related to offensive language is contextually
determined.[1] Surely it's the case that a choice of words can
harm, and maybe even harm human rights. However, the HRPC appears
to not have the expertise either in psychology or linguistics to
even have a serious discussion about language, and the co-chair
has attempted to stifle debate. The research group is not having
a discussion that reflects the results or ongoing work of any
research. As you say, there really are serious human rights issues relating to our technology that we as a community could and should address. Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, there are no criminologists, members from the law enforcement community, or human rights experts from interested governments. While it's always difficult to engage interdisciplinary experts in the HRPC, the sole focus on a subset of human rights clearly presents an additional obstacle. Research is happening, but it is happening elsewhere and with zero collaboration/coordination from HRPC.[2] If this entire debate over master/slave is about inclusiveness,
nothing could harm that objective more than advocacy of particular
political positions. Sadly, that is precisely what focusing on a
small subset of rights has led to. The HRPC should either be
rechartered or closed. Because I am skeptical we can really
attract the right participants, I lean toward closure. Eliot [1] Jay, T. (2009). Do offensive words harm people? Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 15(2), 81-101.
On 21.09.18 01:34, John Levine wrote:
In article <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write:In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.If this is really the best that HRPC can do, I would suggest that it's time for the IRTF to consider whether to shut it down. When I've gone to HRPC sessions, I have heard endless papers about more or less plausible threats to freedom of _expression_ or to anonymous speech (which is not the same thing.) More than once I have stood up at HRPC sessions and noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles, and none of the discussion deals with more than two of them. The chairs have assured me that they are equally interested in the other rights, but the evidence of that is pretty thin. What about article 12, protection agaisnt attacks on honor and repuation? What is HRPC doing about trolling and other online attacks? Or article 17, nobody shall be arbitrariy deprived of his property? What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to enable phishing and other online theft? Or article 23, the right to rest and leisure? What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to put people on a 24 hour electronic leash? Instead, we get this stuff. Even if you think that the language in our RFCs is problematic, which for the most part I don't, I am confident that no RFC has ever enslaved anyone, nor put anyone on a secret list that kept them from working (the actual meaning of blacklist for people who know their history.) There are real human rights problems that HRPC could engage with, but don't. They need to make up their mind whether they're serious. R's, John |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
