Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols
draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (hrpc RG)
Last updated 2018-02-23
Replaces draft-tenoever-hrpc-anonymity
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group        S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft                                                     AFNIC
Intended status: Informational                              N. ten Oever
Expires: August 27, 2018                         University of Amsterdam
                                                       February 23, 2018

             Anonymity, Human Rights and Internet Protocols
                      draft-irtf-hrpc-anonymity-00

Abstract

   Anonymity is less discussed in the IETF than for instance security
   [RFC3552] or privacy [RFC6973].  This can be attributed to the fact
   anonymity is a hard technical problem or that anonymizing user data
   is not of specific market interest.  It remains a fact that 'most
   internet users would like to be anonymous online at least
   occasionally' [Pew].

   This document aims to break down the different meanings and
   implications of anonymity on a mediated computer network.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://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 August 27, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Bortzmeyer & ten Oever   Expires August 27, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    anon                     February 2018

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Vocabulary Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Should protocols promote anonymity? . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Example of use cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Simultaneous use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Successive use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Selective use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  User analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Practical advices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Protocol developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Protocol implementors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Open Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Objections against anonymity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   There seems to be a clear need for anonymity online in an environment
   where harassment on the Internet is on the increase [Pew2] and the UN
   Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression calls anonymity
   'necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
   expression in the digital age' [UNHRC2015].

   Nonetheless anonymity is not getting much discussion at the IETF,
   providing anonymity does not seem a (semi-)objective for many
   protocols, even though several documents contribute to improving
   anonymity such as [RFC7258], [RFC7626], [RFC7858].

   There are initiatives on the Internet to improve end users anonymity,
   most notably [torproject], but these initiatives rely on adding
   encryption in the application layer.

   This document aims to break down the different meanings and
   implications of anonymity on a mediated computer network and to see

Bortzmeyer & ten Oever   Expires August 27, 2018                [Page 2]
Show full document text