Skip to main content

Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8280.
Authors Niels ten Oever , Corinne Cath
Last updated 2020-07-29 (Latest revision 2017-07-17)
Replaces draft-tenoever-hrpc-research
RFC stream Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Intended RFC status Informational
IETF conflict review conflict-review-irtf-hrpc-research
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream IRTF state Published RFC
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 8280 (Informational)
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group         N. ten Oever
Internet-Draft                                                ARTICLE 19
Intended status: Informational                                   C. Cath
Expires: January 17, 2018                      Oxford Internet Institute
                                                           July 16, 2017

           Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations


   This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights
   considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for
   privacy considerations [RFC6973].  If you want to apply this work to
   your own, you can directly go to Section 6.  The rest of the document
   explains the background of the guidelines and how they were

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This informational document has consensus for publication from the
   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Human Right Protocol
   Considerations Research Group.  It is the first milestone in a longer
   term research effort and has been reviewed both by the research group
   and by individuals from outside the research group.  Many of the
   topics discussed are still under discussion in the research group and
   will be subjects of continuing research.

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

   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 January 17, 2018.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   ( 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.  Vocabulary used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Research Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Literature and Discussion Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Data Sources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.1.1.  Discourse analysis of RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.1.2.  Interviews with members of the IETF community . . . .  16
       5.1.3.  Participant observation in Working Groups . . . . . .  16
     5.2.  Data analysis strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.1.  Identifying qualities of technical concepts that
               relate to human rights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.2.  Relating human rights to technical concepts . . . . .  18
       5.2.3.  Map cases of protocols, implementations and
               networking paradigms that adversely impact human
               rights or are enablers thereof  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.  Model for developing human rights protocol considerations . .  39
     6.1.  Human rights threats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     6.2.  Guidelines for human rights considerations  . . . . . . .  41
       6.2.1.  Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       6.2.2.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       6.2.3.  Content agnosticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       6.2.4.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       6.2.5.  Internationalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
       6.2.6.  Censorship resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
       6.2.7.  Open Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       6.2.8.  Heterogeneity Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
       6.2.9.  Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
       6.2.10. Pseudonymity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
       6.2.11. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
       6.2.12. Localization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

       6.2.13. Decentralization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
       6.2.14. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
       6.2.15. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
       6.2.16. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
       6.2.17. Authenticity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
       6.2.18. Adaptability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
       6.2.19. Outcome Transparency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
   7.  Document Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   11. Research Group Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
     12.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
     12.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74

1.  Introduction

   "There's a freedom about the Internet: As long as we accept the
      rules of sending packets around, we can send packets containing
      anything to anywhere."


   "The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF."


   The evergrowing interconnectedness of Internet and society increases
   the impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals.  Because of
   this, the design and development of the Internet infrastructure also
   has a growing impact on society.  This has led to a broad recognition
   that human rights [UDHR] [ICCPR] [ICESCR] have a role in the
   development and management of the Internet [HRC2012] [UNGA2013]
   [NETmundial].  It has also been argued that the Internet should be
   strengthened as a human rights enabling environment [Brown].

   This document aims to expose the relation between protocols and human
   rights, propose possible guidelines to protect the Internet as a
   human-rights-enabling environment in future protocol development, in
   a manner similar to the work done for Privacy Considerations in
   [RFC6973], and to increase the awareness in both the human rights
   community and the technical community on the importance of the
   technical workings of the Internet and its impact on human rights.

   Open, secure and reliable connectivity is necessary (although not
   sufficient) to exercise human rights such as freedom of expression

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   and freedom of association [FOC], as defined in the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR].  The purpose of the Internet to
   be a global network of networks that provides unfettered connectivity
   to all users and for any content [RFC1958].  This objective of
   stimulating global connectivity contributes to the Internet's role as
   an enabler of human rights.  The Internet has given people a platform
   to exchange opinions, gather information, and it has enabled people
   of different backgrounds and genders to participate in the public
   debate, it has also allowed people to congregate and organize.  Next
   to that, the strong commitment to security [RFC1984] [RFC3365] and
   privacy [RFC6973] [RFC7258] in the Internet's architectural design
   contribute to the strengthening of the Internet as a human rights
   enabling environment.  One could even argue 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 networks that
   make up the Internet.  Internet connectivity increases the capacity
   for individuals to exercise their rights, the core of the Internet,
   its architectural design is therefore closely intertwined with the
   human rights framework [CathFloridi].  The quintessential link
   between the Internet's infrastructure and human rights has been
   argued by many.  [Bless] for instance argues that, 'to a certain
   extent, the Internet and its protocols have already facilitated the
   realization of human rights, e.g., the freedom of assembly and
   expression.  In contrast, measures of censorship and pervasive
   surveillance violate fundamental human rights.'  [Denardis15] argues
   that 'Since the first hints of Internet commercialization and
   internationalization, the IETF has supported strong security in
   protocol design and has sometimes served as a force resisting
   protocol-enabled surveillance features.'  By doing so, the IETF
   enabled the manifestation of the right to privacy, through the
   Internet's infrastructure.  Additionally, access to freely available
   information gives people access to knowledge that enables them to
   help satisfy other human rights, as such the Internet increasingly
   becomes a pre-condition for human rights rather than a supplement.

   Human rights can be in conflict with each other, such as the right to
   freedom of expression and the right to privacy.  In such cases the
   different affected rights need to be balanced.  In order to do this
   it is crucial that the rights impacts are clearly documented in order
   to mitigate the potential harm.  Making that process tangible and
   practical for protocol developers is what this research aims to
   ultimately contribute to.  Technology can never be fully equated with
   a human right.  Whereas a specific technology might be strong enabler
   of a specific human right, it might have an adverse impact on another
   human right.  In this case decisions on design and deployment need to
   take this into account.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   The open nature of the initial technical design and its open
   standards, as well as developments like open source, fostered freedom
   of communication.  What emerged was a network of networks that could
   enable everyone to connect and to exchange data, information and
   code.  For many, enabling such connections became a core value.
   However as the scale and the commercialization of the Internet grew,
   topics like access, rights and connectivity are forced to compete
   with other values.  Therefore, important human rights enabling
   characteristics of the Internet might be degraded if they're not
   properly defined, described and protected as such.  And, the other
   way around, not protecting human right enabling characteristics could
   also result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity, and
   other inherent parts of the Internet's architecture of networks.  New
   protocols, particularly those that upgrade the core infrastructure of
   the network, should be designed to continue to enable fundamental
   human rights.

   The IETF has produced guidelines and procedures to ensure and
   galvanize the privacy of indiduals and security of the network in
   protocol development.  This document aims to explore the possibility
   of the development of similar procedures for guidelines for human
   rights considerations to ensure that protocols developed in the IETF
   do not have an adverse impact on the realization of human rights on
   the Internet.  By carefully considering the answers to the questions
   posed in the Section 6 part of this document, document authors should
   be able to produce a comprehensive analysis that can serve as the
   basis for discussion on whether the protocol adequately protects
   against specific human rights threats, and potentially stimulate
   authors to think about alternative design choices.

2.  Vocabulary used

   In the discussion of human rights and Internet architecture concepts
   developed in computer science, networking, law, policy-making and
   advocacy are coming together [Dutton],[Kaye],[Franklin], [RFC1958].
   The same concepts might have a very different meaning and
   implications in other areas of expertise.  In order to foster a
   constructive interdisciplinary debate, and minimize differences in
   interpretation, the following glossary is provided, building as much
   as possible on existing definitions, and where these were not
   available definitions have been developed.

   Accessibility  Full Internet Connectivity as described in [RFC4084]
      to provide unfettered access to the Internet

      The design of protocols, services or implementation that provide
      an enabling environment for people with disabilities.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      The ability to receive information available on the Internet

   Anonymity  The condition of an identity being unknown or concealed.

   Anonymous  A state of an individual in which an observer or attacker
      cannot identify the individual within a set of other individuals
      (the anonymity set).  [RFC6973]

   Authenticity  The property of being genuine and able to be verified
      and be trusted.  [RFC4949]

   Blocking  the practice of preventing access to resources in the
      aggregate [RFC7754].  Both blocking and filtering can be
      implemented at the level of "services" (web hosting or video
      streaming, for example) or at the level of particular "content."

   Censorship  technical mechanisms, that include both blocking and
      filtering, that certain political or private actors around the
      world use to block or degrade Internet traffic.  For further
      details on the various elements of Internet censorship see [hall]

   Censorship resistance  Methods and measures to mitigate Internet

   Confidentiality  The property that data is not disclosed to system
      entities unless they have been authorized to know the data.

   Connectivity  The extent to which a device or network is able to
      reach other devices or networks to exchange data.  The Internet is
      the tool for providing global connectivity [RFC1958].  Different
      types of connectivity are further specified in [RFC4084].

      The combination of the end-to-end principle, interoperability,
      distributed architecture, resilience, reliability and robustness
      are the enabling factors that result in connectivity to and on the

   Content agnosticism  Treating network traffic identically regardless
      of content.

   Decentralized  Implementation or deployment of standards, protocols
      or systems without one single point of control.

   End-to-End  The principle that application-specific functions should
      not be embedded into the network and thus stay at the end-points:

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      in many cases, especially when dealing with failures, the right
      decisions can only be made with the corresponding application-
      specific knowledge, which is available at the end-points not in
      the network.

      The end-to-end principle is one of the key architectural
      guidelines of the Internet.  The argument in favor of the end-to-
      end approach to system design is laid out in the fundamental paper
      by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark [Saltzer] [Clark].  In it, the authors
      argue in favor of radical simplification: systems designers should
      only build the essential and shared functions into the network, as
      most functions can only be implemented at network end points.
      Building features into the network for the benefit of certain
      applications, will come at the expense of others.  As such, as a
      general system designers should attempt to steer clear of building
      anything into the network that is not a bare necessity for its
      functioning.  Following the end-to-end principle is crucial for
      innovation, as it makes innovation at the edges possible without
      having to make changes to the network, and the robustness of the
      network.  Various aspects of end-to-end connectivity are further
      elaborated on in [RFC2775].

   Federation  The possibility of connecting autonomous and possibly
      centralized systems into single system without a central

   Filtering  the practice of preventing access to specific resources
      within an aggregate [RFC7754].

   Heterogeneity  The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on many
      levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and queue
      management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of multiplexing,
      protocol versions and implementations, underlying link layers
      (e.g., point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.),
      in the traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at different
      times and places.  Moreover, as the Internet is composed of
      independent organizations and Internet service providers, each
      with their own separate policy concerns,there is a large
      heterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing structures.
      As a result, the heterogeneity principle proposed in [RFC1958]
      needs to be supported by design.  [FIArch]

   Human rights  Human rights are principles and norms that are
      indivisible, interrelated, unalienable, universal, and mutually
      reinforcing that have been codified in national and international
      bodies of law.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]
      is the most well-known document in the history of human rights.
      The apirations from this documents were later codified into

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      treaties such as the [ICCPR] and the [ICESCR], after which
      signatory countries were obliged to reflect them in their national
      bodies of law.  There is also a broad recognition that not only
      states have an obligations vis a vis human rights, but non-state
      actors do so as well.

   Integrity  The property that data has not been changed, destroyed, or
      lost in an unauthorized or accidental manner.  [RFC4949].

   Interoperable  A property of a documented standard or protocol which
      allows different independent implementations to work with each
      other without any restriction on functionality.

   Internationalization (i18n)  The practice of making protocols,
      standards, and implementations usable in different languages and
      scripts (see Localization).

      "In the IETF, "internationalization" means to add or improve the
      handling of non-ASCII text in a protocol" [RFC6365].  A different
      perspective, more appropriate to protocols that are designed for
      global use from the beginning, is the definition used by W3C:

      "Internationalization is the design and development of a product,
      application or document content that enables easy localization for
      target audiences that vary in culture, region, or language."

      Many protocols that handle text only handle one charset (US-
      ASCII), or leave the question of encoding up to local guesswork
      (which leads, of course, to interoperability problems) [RFC3536].
      If multiple charsets are permitted, they must be explicitly
      identified [RFC2277].  Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol allows
      the protocol to handle more scripts, hopefully all of the ones
      useful in the world.  In today's world, that is normally best
      accomplished by allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only, thereby
      shifting conversion issues away from ad hoc choices.

   Localization (l10n)  The practice of translating an implementation to
      make it functional in a specific language or for users in a
      specific locale (see Internationalization).

      (cf [RFC6365]): The process of adapting an internationalized
      application platform or application to a specific cultural
      environment.  In localization, the same semantics are preserved
      while the syntax may be changed.  [FRAMEWORK]

      Localization is the act of tailoring an application for a
      different language or script or culture.  Some internationalized

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      applications can handle a wide variety of languages.  Typical
      users only understand a small number of languages, so the program
      must be tailored to interact with users in just the languages they
      know.  The major work of localization is translating the user
      interface and documentation.  Localization involves not only
      changing the language interaction, but also other relevant changes
      such as display of numbers, dates, currency, and so on.  The
      better internationalized an application is, the easier it is to
      localize it for a particular language and character encoding

   Open standards  Conform with [RFC2026]: Various national and
      international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-
      T, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that
      are similar to Technical Specifications defined here.  National
      and international groups also publish "implementors' agreements"
      that are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body
      of implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical
      application of their standards.  All of these are considered to be
      "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet
      Standards Process.

   Openness  Absence of centralized points of control - a feature that
      is assumed to make it easy for new users to join and new uses to
      unfold [Brown].

   Permissionless innovation  The freedom and ability to freely create
      and deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs
      that currently exist.

   Privacy  The right of an entity (normally a person), acting in its
      own behalf, to determine the degree to which it will interact with
      its environment, including the degree to which the entity is
      willing to share its personal information with others.  [RFC4949]

      The right of individuals to control or influence what information
      related to them may be collected and stored and by whom and to
      whom that information may be disclosed.

      Privacy is a broad concept relating to the protection of
      individual or group autonomy and the relationship between an
      individual or group and society, including government, companies
      and private individuals.  It is often summarized as "the right to
      be left alone" but it encompasses a wide range of rights including
      protections from intrusions into family and home life, control of
      sexual and reproductive rights, and communications secrecy.  It is
      commonly recognized as a core right that underpins human dignity

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of

      The right to privacy is also recognized in nearly every national
      constitution and in most international human rights treaties.  It
      has been adjudicated upon both by international and regional
      bodies.  The right to privacy is also legally protected at the
      national level through provisions in civil and/or criminal codes.

   Reliability  Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its
      function consistently as described and function without unexpected
      result.  A system that is reliable degenerates gracefully and will
      have a documented way to announce degradation.  It also has
      mechanisms to recover from failure gracefully, and if applicable,
      allow for partial healing [dict].

   Resilience  The maintaining of dependability and performance in the
      face of unanticipated changes and circumstances [Meyer].

   Robustness  The resistance of protocols and their implementations to
      errors, and to involuntary, legal or malicious attempts to disrupt
      its mode of operations.  [RFC0760] [RFC0791] [RFC0793] [RFC1122].
      Or framed more positively, a system can provide functionality
      consistently and without errors despite involuntary, legal or
      malicious attempts to disrupt its mode of operations.

   Scalability  The ability to handle increased or decreased system
      parameters (e.g., number of end-systems, users, data flows,
      routing entries. etc.) predictably within defined expectations.
      There should be a clear definition of its scope and applicability.
      The limits of a system's scalability should be defined.  Growth or
      shrinkage of these parameters is typically considered by orders of

   Strong encryption / cryptography Used to describe a cryptographic
   algorithm that would require a large amount of computational power to
   defeat it.  [RFC4949].  In the modern usage of the definition 'strong
   encryption' this refers to an amount of computing power current not
   available, not even to major state-level actors.

   Transparency  In this context transparency is linked to the
      comprehensibility of a protocol in relation to the choices it
      makes for both user and protocol developers and implementers and
      to its outcome.

      outcome transparency, is linked to the comprehensibility of the
      effects of a protocol in relation to the choices it makes for both
      user and protocol developers and implementers, including the

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

      comprehensibility of possible unintended consequences of protocol
      choices (e.g. lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity
      and negative externalities)

3.  Research Questions

   The Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research Group (hrpc) in the
   Internet Research Taskforce (IRTF) embarked on its mission to answer
   the following two questions which are also the main two questions
   which this documents seeks to answer:

   1.  How can Internet protocols and standards impact human rights,
       either by enabling them or by creating a restrictive environment?

   2.  Can guidelines be developed to improve informed and transparent
       decision making about potential human rights impact of protocols?

4.  Literature and Discussion Review

   Protocols and standards are regularly seen as merely performing
   technical functions.  However, these protocols and standards do not
   exist outside of their technical context nor outside of their
   political, historical, economic, legal or cultural context.  This is
   best exemplified by the way in which some Internet processes and
   protocols have become part and parcel of political processes and
   public policies: one only has to look at the IANA transition, the RFC
   on pervasive monitoring or global innovation policy for concrete
   examples [Denardis15].  According to [Abbate]: "protocols are
   politics by other means".  This statement would probably not garner
   IETF consensus, but it nonetheless confers that protocols are based
   on decision making, most often by humans.  In this process the values
   and ideas about the role that a particular technology should perform
   in society is embedded into the design.  Often these design decisions
   are part pure-technical, and part inspired by certain world view of
   how technology should function that is inspired by personal,
   corporate and political views.  Within the community of IETF
   participants there is a strong desire to solve technical problems and
   minimize engagement with political processes and non-protocol related
   political issues.

   Since the late 1990's a burgeoning group of academics and
   practitioners researched questions surrounding the societal impact of
   protocols, and the politics of protocols.  These studies vary in
   focus and scope: some focus on specific standards [Davidsonetal]
   [Musiani], others look into the political, legal, commercial or
   social impact of protocols [BrownMarsden] [Lessig], [Mueller] and yet
   others look at how the engineers' personal set of values get

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   translated into technology [Abbate] [CathFloridi] [Denardis15]

   Commercial and political influences on the management of the
   Internet's infrastructure are well-documented in the academic
   literature and will thus not be discussed here [Benkler]  [Brownetal]
   [Denardis15]  [Lessig]  [Mueller]  [Zittrain].  It is sufficient to
   say that the IETF community consistently tries to push back against
   the standardization of surveillance and certain other issues that
   negatively influence end-users' experience of and trust in the
   Internet [Denardis14].  The role human rights play in engineering,
   infrastructure maintenance and protocol design is much less clear.

   It is very important to understand how protocols and standards impact
   human rights.  In particular because Standard Developing
   Organizations (SDOs) are increasingly becoming venues where social
   values (like human rights) are discussed, although often from a
   technological point of view.  These SDOs are becoming a new focal
   point for discussions about values-by-design, and the role of
   technical engineers in protecting or enabling human rights
   [Brownetal] [Clarketal] [Denardis14] [CathFloridi] [Lessig]

   In the academic literature five clear positions can be discerned, in
   relation to the role of human rights in protocol design and how to
   account for these human rights in protocol development: Clark et al.
   argue that there is a need to 'design for variation in outcome, so
   that the outcome can be different in different places, and the tussle
   takes place within the design (...) [as] Rigid designs will be
   broken; designs that permit variation will flex under pressure and
   survive [Clarketal].'  They hold that human rights should not be
   hard-coded into protocols because of three reasons: first, the rights
   in the UDHR are not absolute.  Second, technology is not the only
   tool in the tussle over human rights.  And last but not least, it is
   dangerous to make promises that can't be kept.  The open nature of
   the Internet will never, they argue, be enough to fully protect
   individuals' human rights.

   Conversely, Brown et al.  [Brownetal] state that 'some key, universal
   values - of which the UDHR is the most legitimate expression - should
   be baked into the architecture at design time.'  They argue that
   design choices have offline consequences, and are able to shape the
   power positions of groups or individuals in society.  As such, the
   individuals making these technical decisions have a moral obligation
   to take into account the impact of their decisions on society, and by
   extension human rights.  Brown et al recognise that values and the
   implementation of human rights vary across the globe.  Yet they argue
   that all members of the United Nations have found 'common agreement

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   on the values proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights.  In looking for the most legitimate set of global values to
   embed in the future Internet architectures, the UDHR has the
   democratic assent of a significant fraction of the planet's
   population, through their elected representatives."

   The main disagreement between these two academic positions lies
   mostly in the question on whether a particular value system should be
   embedded into the Internet's architectures or whether the
   architectures need to account for a varying set of values.

   A third position that is similar to that of Brown et al., is taken by
   [Broeders] who argues that 'we must find ways to continue
   guaranteeing the overall integrity and functionality of the public
   core of the Internet.'  He argues that the best way to do this is by
   declaring the backbone of the Internet - which includes the TCP/IP
   protocol suite, numerous standards, the Domain Name System (DNS), and
   routing protocols - a common public good.  This is a different
   approach than that of [Clarketal] and [Brownetal] because Broeders
   does not suggest that social values should (or should not) be
   explicitly coded into the Internet, but rather that the existing
   infrastructure should be seen as an entity of public value.

   Bless and Orwat [Bless] represent a fourth position.  They argue that
   it is too early to make any definitive claims, but that there is a
   need for more careful analysis of the impact of protocol design
   choices on human rights.  They also argue that it is important to
   search for solutions that 'create awareness in the technical
   community about impact of design choices on social values.  And work
   towards a methodology for co-design of technical and institutional

   Berners-Lee and Halpin argue that the Internet could lead to even new
   capacities, and these capacities may over time be viewed as new kinds
   of rights.  For example, Internet access may be viewed as a human
   right in of itself if it is taken to be a pre-condition for other
   rights, even if it could not have been predicted at the declaration
   of the UNHDR after the end of World War 2.[BernersLeeHalpin].

   It is important to contextualize the technical discussion with the
   academic discussions on this issue.  The academic discussions also
   are important to document as they inform the position of the authors
   of this document.  The Research Groups position is that hard-coding
   human rights into protocols is complicated and changes with the
   context.  At this point is difficult to say whether hard-coding human
   rights into protocols is wise or feasible.  Additionally, there are
   many human rights, but that not all are relevant for ICTs.  A partial
   catalog, with references to sources, of human rights related to ICTs

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   can be found here [Hill2014].  It is however important to make
   conscious and explicit design decisions that take into account the
   human rights protocol considerations guidelines developed below.
   This will contribute to the understanding of the impact protocols can
   have on human rights, both for developers and for users.  In
   addition, it contributes to the careful consideration of the impact
   that a specific protocol might have on human rights and that concrete
   design decisions are documented in the protocol.

   Pursuant to the principle of constant change, since the function and
   scope of the Internet evolves, so does the role of the IETF in
   developing standards.  Internet standards are adopted on the basis of
   a series of criteria, including high technical quality, support by
   community consensus, and their overall benefit to the Internet.  The
   latter calls for an assessment of the interests of all affected
   parties and the specifications' impact on the Internet's users.  In
   this respect, the effective exercise of the human rights of the
   Internet users is a relevant consideration that needs to be
   appreciated in the standardization process insofar as it is directly
   linked to the reliability and core values of the Internet.  [RFC1958]
   [RFC0226] [RFC3724]

   This document details the steps taken in the research into human
   rights protocol considerations by the hrpc research group to clarify
   the relation between technical concepts used in the IETF and human
   rights.  This document sets out some preliminary steps and
   considerations for engineers to take into account when developing
   standards and protocols.

5.  Methodology

   Mapping the relation between human rights, protocols and
   architectures is a new research challenge, which requires a good
   amount of interdisciplinary and cross organizational cooperation to
   develop a consistent methodology.

   The methodological choices made in this document are based on the
   political science-based method of discourse analysis and ethnographic
   research methods [Cath].  This work departs from the assumption that
   language reflects the understanding of concepts.  Or as [Jabri]
   holds, policy documents are 'social relations represented in texts
   where language is used to construct meaning and representation'.
   This process happens in 'the social space of society' [Schroeder] and
   manifests itself in institutions and organizations [King], exposed
   using the ethnographic methods of semi-structured interviews and
   participant observation.  Or in non-academic language, the way the
   language in IETF/IRTF documents describes and approaches the issues
   they are trying to address is an indicator for the underlying social

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   assumptions and relations of the engineers to their engineering.  By
   reading and analyzing these documents, as well as interviewing
   engineers and participating in the IETF/IRTF working groups, it is
   possible to distill the relation between human rights, protocols and
   the Internet's infrastructure as it pertains to the work of the IETF.

   The discourse analysis was operationalized using qualitative and
   quantitative means.  The first step taken by the authors and
   contributors was reading RFCs and other official IETF documents.  The
   second step was the use of a python-based analyzer, using the tool
   Big Bang, adapted by Nick Doty [Doty] to scan for the concepts that
   were identified as important architectural principles (distilled on
   the initial reading and supplemented by the interviews and
   participant observation).  Such a quantitative method is very precise
   and speeds up the research process [Richie].  But this tool is unable
   to understand 'latent meaning' [Denzin].  In order to mitigate these
   issues of automated word-frequency based approaches, and to get a
   sense of the 'thick meaning' [Geertz] of the data, a second
   qualitative analysis of the data set was performed.  These various
   rounds of discourse analysis were used to inform the interviews and
   further data analysis.  As such the initial rounds of quantitative
   discourse analysis were used to inform the second rounds of
   qualitative analysis.  The results from the qualitative interviews
   were again used to feed new concepts into the quantitative discourse
   analysis.  As such the two methods continued to support and enrich
   each other.

   The ethnographic methods of the data collection and processing
   allowed the research group to acquire the data necessary to 'provide
   a holistic understanding of research participants' views and actions'
   [Denzin] that highlighted ongoing issues and case studies where
   protocols impact human rights.  The interview participants were
   selected through purposive sampling [Babbie], as the research group
   was interested in getting a wide variety of opinions on the role of
   human rights in guiding protocol development.  This sampling method
   also ensured that individuals with extensive experience working at
   the IETF in various roles were targeted.  The interviewees included
   individuals in leadership positions (Working Group (WG) chairs, Area
   Directors (ADs)), 'regular participants', individuals working for
   specific entities (corporate, civil society, political, academic) and
   represented various backgrounds, nationalities and genders.

5.1.  Data Sources

   In order to map the potential relation between human rights and
   protocols, the HRPC research group gathered data from three specific

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

5.1.1.  Discourse analysis of RFCs

   To start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet
   infrastructure and protocols features, vis-a-vis their possible
   impact on human rights was undertaken.  Therefore, research on the
   language used in current and historic RFCs and mailing list
   discussions was undertaken to expose core architectural principles,
   language and deliberations on human rights of those affected by the

5.1.2.  Interviews with members of the IETF community

   Over 30 interviews with the current and past members of the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB), current and past members of the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and chairs of selected working
   groups and RFC authors were done at the IETF92 Dallas meeting in
   March 2015.  To get an insider understanding of how they view the
   relationship (if any) between human rights and protocols to play out
   in their work.  Several of the participants opted to remain
   anonymous, if you are interested in this data set please contact the

5.1.3.  Participant observation in Working Groups

   By participating in various working groups, in person at IETF
   meetings and on mailinglists, information was gathered about the
   IETFs day-to-day workings.  From which general themes, technical
   concepts, and use-cases about human rights and protocols were
   extracted.  This process started at the IETF91 meeting and continues

5.2.  Data analysis strategies

   The data above was processed using three consecutive strategies:
   mapping protocols related to human rights, extracting concepts from
   these protocols, and creation of a common glossary (detailed under
   Section 2).  Before going over these strategies some elaboration on
   the process of identifying technical concepts as they relate to human
   rights needs to be given:

5.2.1.  Identifying qualities of technical concepts that relate to human
        rights  Mapping protocols and standards to human rights

   By combining data from the three data sources named above, an
   extensive list of protocols and standards that potentially enable the
   Internet as a tool for freedom of expression and association was

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   created.  In order to determine the enabling (or inhibiting) features
   we relied on direct references of such impact in the RFCs, as well as
   input from the community.  On the basis of this analysis a list of
   RFCs that describe standards and protocols that are potentially
   closely related to human rights was compiled.  Extracting concepts from selected RFCs

   Identifying the protocols and standards that are related to human
   rights and create a human rights enabeling environment was the first
   step.  For that we needed to focus on specific technical concepts
   that underlie these protocols and standards.  On the basis of this
   list a number of technical concepts that appeared frequently was
   extracted, and used to create a second list of technical terms that,
   when combined and applied in different circumstances, create an
   enabling environment for excercising human rights on the Internet.  Building a common vocabulary of technical concepts that impact
          human rights

   While interviewing experts, investigating RFCs and compiling
   technical definitions several concepts of convergence and divergence
   were identified.  To ensure that the discussion was based on a common
   understanding of terms and vocabulary, a list of definitions was
   created.  The definitions are based on the wording found in various
   IETF documents, and if these were unavailable definitions were taken
   from definitions from other Standards Developing Organizations or
   academic literature, as indicated in the vocabulary section.  Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions

   The previous steps allowed for the clarification of relations between
   human rights and technical concepts.  The steps taken show how the
   research process zoomed in, from compiling a broad lists of protocols
   and standards that relate to human rights to extracting the precise
   technical concepts that make up these protocols and standards, in
   order to understand the relationship between the two.  This sub-
   section presents the next step: translating human rights to technical
   concepts by matching the individuals components of the rights to the
   accompanying technical concepts, allowing for the creation of a list
   of technical concepts that when partially combined can create an
   enabling environment for human rights.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017  List technical terms that when partially combined can create
          an enabling environment for human rights

   On the basis of the prior steps the following list of technical
   terms, that when partially combined can create an enabling
   environment for human rights, such a freedom of expression and
   freedom of association, was drafted.

     Architectural principles                    Enabling features
       and system properties                        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       =                  |
    =                 |      Heterogeneity support  =                  |
    =                 |                             =                  |
    =                 |                             =                  |
    =                 \------------------------------------------------/
    =                                               =

   figure 1 - relation between architectural principles and enabling
   features for user rights.

5.2.2.  Relating human rights to technical concepts

   The combination of the technical concepts that have been gathered the
   steps above have been grouped according to their impact on specific
   rights as they have been mentioned in the interviews done at IETF92
   as well as study of literature (see literature and discussion review

   This analysis aims to assist protocol developers in better
   understanding the roles specific technical concepts have with regards
   to their contribution to an enabeling environment for people to
   excise their human rights.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   This analysis does not claim to be a complete or exhaustive mapping
   of all possible ways in which a protocols could potentially impact
   human rights, but it presents an initial concept mapping based on
   interviews and literature and discussion review.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   | Technical Concepts    | Rights potentially impacted             |
   | Connectivity          |                                         |
   | Privacy               |                                         |
   | Security              |                                         |
   | Content agnosticism   | Right to freedom of expression          |
   | Internationalization  |                                         |
   | Censorship resistance |                                         |
   | Open Standards        |                                         |
   | Heterogeneity support |                                         |
   | Anonymity             |                                         |
   | Privacy               |                                         |
   | Pseudonymity          | Right to non-discrimination             |
   | Accessibility         |                                         |
   | Content agnosticism   |                                         |
   | Security              | Right to equal protection               |
   | Accessibility         |                                         |
   | Internationalization  | Right to political participation        |
   | Censorship resistance |                                         |
   | Connectivity          |                                         |
   | Open standards        |                                         |
   | Localization          | Right to participate in cultural life,  |
   | Internationalization  |                  arts and science &     |
   | Censorship resistance | Right to education                      |
   | Accessibility         |                                         |
   | Connectivity          |                                         |
   | Decentralization      |                                         |
   | Censorship resistance | Right to freedom of assembly            |
   | Pseudonymity          |                     and association     |
   | Anonymity             |                                         |
   | Security              |                                         |
   | Reliability           |                                         |
   | Confidentiality       |                                         |
   | Integrity             | Right to security                       |
   | Authenticity          |                                         |
   | Anonymity             |                                         |
   |                       |                                         |

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   figure 2 - relation between specific technical concepts with regards
   to their contribution to an enabeling environment for people to
   exercise their human rights

5.2.3.  Map cases of protocols, implementations and networking paradigms
        that adversely impact human rights or are enablers thereof

   Given the information above, the following list of cases of
   protocols, implenentations and networking paradigms that adversely
   impact or enable human rights was formed.

   It is important to note that the assessment here is not a general
   judgment on these protocols, nor an exhaustive listing of all the
   potential negative or positive impacts on human rights they might
   have.  When they were conceived, there were many criteria to take
   into account.  For instance, relying on an centralized service can be
   bad for freedom of speech (it creates one more control point, where
   censorship could be applied) but it may be a necessity if the
   endpoints are not connected and reachable permanently.  So, when we
   say "protocol X has feature Y, which may endanger the freedom of
   speech", it does not mean that protocol X is bad and even less that
   its authors were evil.  The goal here is to show, with actual
   examples, that the design of protocols have practical consequences
   for some human rights and these consequences have to be considered in
   the design phase.  IPv4

   The Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), also known as 'layer 3' of
   the Internet, and specified as a common encapsulation and protocol
   header, is defined in [RFC0791].  The evolution of Internet
   communications led to continued development in this area,
   encapsulated in the development of version 6 (IPv6) 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 sizeable majority of Internet
   traffic, and most of the issues discussed here (with the big
   exception of NAT, see Address Translation) are valid for IPv4 as well
   as IPv6.

   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-based
   traffic shaping and restricting the communications of end hosts.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   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 to understand which technical protocol decisions have led
   to harm of this human rights.  A feature that can harm freedom of
   expression as well as the right to privacy through misuse of the
   Internet Protocol is the 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.  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 people to
   communicate today, [caida] and can be seen as a restriction of the
   ability for people to assemble or to consensually express themselves.

   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 do exist, such as the Accountable
   and Private Internet Protocol [APIP] and Hornet [Hornet] as well as
   source routing.  The latter would allow for the sender to choose a
   pre-defined (safe) route and spoofing of the source IP address, which
   are technically supported by the IPv4 protocol, but neither are
   considered good practice on the Internet [Farrow].  While projects
   like [torproject] provide an alternative implementation of anonymity
   in connections, they have been developed in spite of the IPv4
   protocol design.  Address Translation and Mobility

   A major structural shift in the Internet which undermined the
   protocol design of IPv4, and significantly reduced the freedom of end
   users to communicate and assemble is the introduction of network
   address translation.  [RFC3022] Network address translation is a
   process whereby organizations and autonomous systems 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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   unknown request for communication will be correctly forwarded to a
   host on the other network.

   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.  In this situation the compromise made
   in the design of the protocol resulted in a technology that is not
   coherent with the end-to-end principles and thus creates an extra
   possible hurdle for freedom of expression in its design, even though
   a viable alternative exists.  There is a particular problem
   surrounding NATs and VPN (as well as other connections used for
   privacy purposes) as NATs sometimes cause VPNs not to work.  DNS

   The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035], provides service discovery
   capabilities, 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 which
   function in line with ICANN's policy by answering queries for which
   organizations have been delegated to manage registration under each
   Top Level Domain (TLD).  The DNS is organized as a rooted tree, and
   this brings up political and social concerns over control.  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 recently
   been 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.  This new development has both positive and negative
   implications in terms of enabling human rights.  Some individuals
   argue that it undermines the right to freedom of expression because
   some of these new gtlds have restricted policies on registration and
   particular rules on hate speech content.  Others argue that precisely
   these properties are positive because they enable certain (mostly
   minority) communities to build safer spaces for association, thereby
   enabling their right to freedom of association.  An often mentioned
   example is an application like .gay [CoE].

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   DNS has significant privacy issues per [RFC7626].  Most notable 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 received a correct, "authoritative", answer to a query.  In
   response to the privacy issues, the IETF DNS PRIVate Exchange
   (DPRIVE) Working Group is developing mechanisms to provide
   confidentiality to DNS transactions, to address concerns surrounding
   pervasive monitoring [RFC7258].

   Authentication through DNSSEC creates a validation path for records.
   This authentication protects against forged or manipulated DNS data.
   As such DNSSEC protects the directory look-up and makes hijacking of
   a session harder.  This is important because currently interference
   with the operation of the DNS is becoming 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.  Even though DNSSEC doesn't prevent censorship,
   it makes it clear that the returned information is not the
   information that was requested, which contributes to the right to
   security and increases trust in the network.  It is however important
   to note that DNSSEC is currently not widely supported or deployed by
   domain name registrars, making it difficult to authenticate and use
   correctly.  Removal of records

   There have been a number of cases where the records for a domain are
   removed from the name system due to political events.  Examples of
   this removal includes the 'seizure' of wikileaks [bbc-wikileaks] and
   the names of illegally operating gambling operations by the United
   States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement unit (ICE).  In the first
   case, a US court ordered the registrar to take down the domain.  In
   the second, ICE compelled the US-based registry in charge of the .com
   TLD to hand ownership of those domains over to the US government.
   The same technique has been used in 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.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   (While mentioning alternative techniques, this is not a comparison of
   DNS with Namecoin: the latter has its own problems and limitations.
   The idea here is to show that there are several possible choices, and
   they have consequences for human rights.)  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
   can be observed in Chinese network.

   A notable instance of distortion occurred in Greece [ververis], where
   a study found evidence of both of deep packet inspection to distort
   DNS replies, and more excessive blocking of content than was legally
   required or requested (also known as overblocking).  ISPs prevented
   clients from resolving the names of domains which they were
   instructed to do through a governmental order, prompting this
   particular 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 is also
   been made possible by the predictable structure of DNS messages,
   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 [hall].

   Users can switch to another resolver, for instance a public one.  The
   distorter can then try to block or hijack the connection to this
   resolver.  This may start an arm's race, the user switching to
   secured connections to this alternative resolver ([RFC7858]), the
   disruptor then trying to find more sophisticated ways to block or
   hijack.  In some cases, this search for an alternative, non-
   disrupting resolver, may lead to more centralisation, many people
   going to a few big commercial public resolvers.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017  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 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 deemed inappropriate will
   trigger the network to respond with a false response, causing the
   client to ignore the real response when it subsequently arrives.
   [greatfirewall] Unlike the other forms of discussion mentioned 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.  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.  Its simple design strongly contributed
   to the fact that 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 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) [RFC6101], and later of Transport Layer
   Security (TLS)[RFC5246], also happened during the 1990s, the fact
   that HTTP doesn't mandate the use of such encryption layers to
   developers and service providers, was one of the reasons for a very
   late adoption of encryption.  Only in the middle of the 2000s did we
   observe big Internet service providers, such as Google, starting to
   provide encrypted access to their web services.

   The lack of sensitivity and understanding of the critical importance
   of securing web traffic incentivized certain (offensive) actors 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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   number of human rights abuses that have been discovered and reported
   over the years.

   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.
   That being said, the IETF is taking steady steps to move to the
   encrypted version of HTTP, HTTPSecure (HTTPS).

   While this is commendable, we must not lose track of the fact that
   different protocols, implementations, configurations and networking
   paradigms can intersect such that they (can be used to) adversely
   impact human rights.  For instance, certain countries will throttle
   HTTPS connections forcing users to switch to the (unthrottled) HTTP
   to facilitate surveillance [Aryanetall].  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.
   E-mail providers such as were the first ones to enable SSL
   by default.  Google introduced an option for its GMail users to
   navigate with SSL only in 2008 [Rideout], and turned TLS on by
   default later in 2010 [Schillace].  It took an increasing amount of
   security breaches and revelations on global surveillance from Edward
   Snowden to have other mail service providers to follow suit.  For
   example, Yahoo enabled SSL/TLS by default on its webmail services
   only towards the end of 2013 [Peterson].

   TLS itself has been subject to many attacks and bugs which can be
   attributed to some fundamental design weaknesses such as lack of a
   state machine, which opens a vulnerability for a Triple Handshake
   Attack, and flaws caused by early U.S. government restrictions on
   cryptography, leading to cipher-suite downgrade attacks (Logjam
   attack).  These vulnerabilities are being corrected in TLS1.3.
   [Bhargavan] [Adrian]

   HTTP upgrading to HTTPS is also vulnerable to having an attacker
   remove the "S" in any links to HTTPS URIs from a web-page transferred
   in cleartext over HTTP, an attack called "SSL Stripping" [sslstrip].
   Thus, for high security use of HTTPS IETF standards such as HSTS
   [RFC6797], certificate pinning [RFC7469] and/or DANE [RFC6698] should
   be used.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   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 [WP-Tempora] and NSA's
   XKEYSCORE [Greenwald].  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 some 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, making use of known and unknown weaknesses in
   existing protocols [RFC7258].  We have several records of such
   equipment being sold and utilized by some 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 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 at a country level [WSJ].  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 under 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
   actively compromising computers and mobile devices.  If an HTTP
   session travels in the 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, add
   malware, and repackage binary software updates that are very commonly

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   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
   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

   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.  Certain companies are known to have network
   injection gear within their products portfolio [Marquis-Boire].  The
   technology devised and produced by some of them 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 led to human rights abuses and illegitimate
   surveillance of journalists, human rights defenders, and political
   activists in many countries around the world [Collins].  While

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 29]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   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

   There is a new version of HTTP, called HTTP/2, which was published as
   [RFC7540] and which aimed to be largely backwards compatible but also
   offer new option such as data compression of HTTP headers and
   pipelining of request and multiplexing multiple requests over a
   single TCP connection.  In addition to decreasing latency to improve
   page loading speeds it also facilitates more efficient use of
   connectivity in low-bandwith environments, which is an enabler for
   freedom of expression, the right to assembly, right to political
   participation and the right to participate in cultural life, art and
   science.  [RFC7540] does not mandate Transport Layer Security or any
   other form of encryption, also does not support opportunistic
   encryption, eventhough that is now addressed in [RFC8164].  XMPP

   The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), specified in
   [RFC6120], 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.  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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 30]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   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 encrypted connections are not required by the protocol
   itself [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 (
   xep-0045.html).  However, it is not encoded or required at a protocol
   level, and not uniformly implemented by clients.

   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.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 31]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017  Peer to Peer

   Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is a distributed network architecture [RFC5694] in
   which all the participant nodes can be responsible for the storage
   and dissemination of information from any other node (defined in
   [RFC7574], an IETF standard that used a P2P architecture).  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 a popular architecture for networks
   and applications that require (or encourage) decentralization.  A
   prime example is Bitcoin (and similar cryptocurrencies), as well as
   Bitcoin and proprietary multimedia applications.

   In a time of heavily centralized online services, peer-to-peer is
   regularly described as an alternative, more democratic, and resistant
   option 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 imporant 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
   aimed 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
   significant percentage of global Internet traffic [Sandvine] 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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 32]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   ongoing conflict between copyright holders and file-sharing
   communities [wikileaks].  Such throttling undermines the end-to-end

   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 law firms 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 noting that there are varieties of P2P networks that
   implement cryptographic practices and that introduce anonymization of
   its users.  Such implementations may be 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 [freenet2].  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.  It is important to know

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 33]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   that there are no known complete, environmentally sustainable, and
   fully distributed solutions to Sybil attacks, and routing via
   'friends' allows users to be de-anonymized via their social graph.
   It is important to note that Sybil attacks in this context (e.f.
   astroturfing) are relevant to more than P2P protocols.  And are also
   common on web based systems, and exploited by governments and
   commercial entitities.

   Encrypted P2P and Anonymous P2P networks already emerged and provided
   viable platforms for sharing material [tribler], publish content
   anonymously, and communicate securely [bitmessage].  These platforms
   are not perfect, and more research needs to be done.  If adopted at
   large, well-designed and resistant P2P networks might represent a
   critical component of a future secure and distributed Internet,
   enabling freedom of speech and freedom of information at scale.  Virtual Private Network

   The Virtual Private Networks (VPN) that are being discussed here are
   point-to-point connections that enables two computers to communicate
   over an encrypted tunnel.  There are multiple implementations and
   protocols used in the deployment of VPNs, 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 monitoring 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 misleading, as some of the privacy and security
   properties of VPNs are often misunderstood by less tech-savvy users,
   which could ultimately lead to unintended problems.

   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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 34]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [Insinuator] [Alshalanetal] , 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.  No anonymity against VPN provider

   One of the common misconceptions 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 misconfigurations of the VPN provider.  It
   is important to remember that, in contrast 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 considerig that countries
   enforce 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.  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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 35]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017  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

   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
   and could completely nullify the use of a VPN and ultimately expose
   the activity and the identity of a user at risk.  HTTP Status Code 451

   Every Internet user has run into the '404 Not Found' Hypertext
   Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code when trying, and failing, to
   access a particular website [Cath].  It is a response status that the
   server sends to the browser, when the server cannot locate the URL.
   '403 Forbidden' is another example of this class of code signals that
   gives users information about what is going on.  In the '403' case
   the server can be reached, but is blocking the request because the
   user is trying to access content forbidden to them.  This typically
   because some content is only for identified users, based on a
   payment, or on a special status in the organisation. 403 is most of

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 36]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   the time sent by the origin server, not by an intermediary.  If a
   firewall prevents a government employee to access pornography on a
   work-computer, it does not use 403.

   As surveillance and censorship of the Internet is becoming more
   commonplace, voices were raised at the IETF to introduce a new status
   code that indicates when something is not available for 'legal
   reasons' (like censorship):

   The 451 status code would allow server operators to operate with
   greater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public
   policy affect their operation.  This transparency may be beneficial
   both to these operators and to end-users [RFC7725].

   The status code is named '451', a reference to Bradbury's famous
   novel on censorship, and the temperature (in Fahrenheit) at which
   bookpaper autoignites.

   During the IETF92 meeting in Dallas, there was discussion about the
   usefulness of '451'.  The main tension revolved around the lack of an
   apparent machine-readable technical use of the information.  The
   extent to which '451' is just 'political theatre' or whether it has a
   concrete technical use was heatedly debated.  Some argued that 'the
   451 status code is just a status code with a response body' others
   said it was problematic because 'it brings law into the picture'.
   Again others argued that it would be useful for individuals, or
   organizations like the 'Chilling Effects' project, crawling the web
   to get an indication of censorship (IETF discussion on '451' -
   author's field notes March 2015).  There was no outright objection
   during the Dallas meeting against moving forward on status code
   '451', and on December 18, 2015 the Internet Engineering Steering
   Group approved publication of 'An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal
   Obstacles'.  It is now an IETF approved HTTP status code to signal
   when resource access is denied as a consequence of legal demands

   What is interesting about this particular case is that not only
   technical arguments but also the status code's outright potential
   political use for civil society played a substantial role in shaping
   the discussion, and the decision to move forward with this

   It is nonetheless important to note that HTTP status code 451 is not
   a solution to detect all occasions of censorship.  A large swath of
   Internet filtering occurs in the network, at a lower level than HTTP,
   rather than the server itself.  For these forms of censorship 451
   plays a limited role, as typical censoring intermediaries won't
   generate it.  Besides technical reasons, such filtering regimes are

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 37]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   unlikely to voluntarily inject a 451 status code.  The use of 451 is
   most likely to apply in the case of cooperative, legal versions of
   content removal resulting from requests to providers.  One can think
   of content that is removed or blocked for legal reasons, like
   copyright infringement, gambling laws, child abuse, et cetera.  Large
   Internet companies and search engines are constantly asked to censor
   content in various jurisdictions. 451 allows this to be easily
   discovered, for instance by initiatives like the Lumen Database.

   Overall, the strength of 451 lies in its ability to provide
   transparency by giving the reason for blocking, and giving the end-
   user the ability to file a complaint.  It allows organizations to
   easily measure censorship in an automated way, and prompts the user
   to access the content via another path (e.g.  TOR, VPNs) when (s)he
   encounters the 451 status code.

   Status code 451 impact human rights by making censorship more
   transparent and measurable.  The status code increases transparency
   both by signaling the existence of censorship (instead of a much more
   broad HTTP error message like HTTP status code 404) as well as
   providing details of the legal restriction, which legal authority is
   imposing it, and what class of resources it applies to.  This
   empowers the user to seek redress.  DDoS attacks

   Many individuals, not excluding IETF engineers, have argued that DDoS
   attacks are fundamentally against freedom of expression.  Technically
   DDoS attacks are when one or multiple host overload the bandwidth or
   resources of another host by flooding it with traffic or making
   resource intensive requests, causing it to temporarily stop being
   available to users.  One can roughly differentiate three types of
   DDoS attacks: Volume Based Attacked (This attack aims to make the
   host unreachable by using up all it's bandwith, often used techniques
   are: UDP floods and ICMP floods), Protocol Attacks (This attacks aims
   to use up actual server resources, often used techniques are SYN
   floods, fragmented packet attacks, and Ping of Death [RFC4949]) and
   Application Layer Attacks (this attack aims to bring down a server,
   such as the webserver).

   DDoS attacks can thus stifle freedom of expression, complicate the
   ability of independent media and human rights organizations to
   exercise their right to (online) freedom of association, while
   facilitating the ability of governments to censor dissent.  When it
   comes to comparing DDoS attacks to protests in offline life, it is
   important to remember that only a limited number of DDoS attacks
   involved solely willing participants.  In the overwhelming majority
   of cases, the clients are hacked hosts of unrelated parties that have

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 38]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   not consented to being part of a DDoS (for exceptions see Operation
   Abibil [Abibil] or the Iranian Green Movement DDoS [GreenMovement]).
   In addition, DDoS attacks are increasingly used as an extortion

   All of these issues seem to suggest that the IETF should try to
   ensure that their protocols cannot be used for DDoS attacks, which is
   consistent with the long-standing IETF consensus that DDoS is an
   attack that protocols should mitigate them to the extent they can
   [BCP72].  Decreasing the number of vulnerabilities in protocols and
   (outside of IETF) the number of bugs in the network stacks of routers
   or computers could address this issue.  The IETF can clearly play a
   role in bringing about some of these changes but the IETF cannot be
   expected to take a positive stance on (specific) DDoS attacks, or
   create protocols to enable some attacks and inhibit others.  What the
   IETF can do is critically reflect on its role in the development of
   the Internet, and how this impacts the ability of people to excercise
   their human rights, such as freedom of expression.

6.  Model for developing human rights protocol considerations

   This section outlines a set of human rights protocol considerations
   for protocol developers.  It provides questions engineers should ask
   themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to
   understand their human rights impact.  It should however be noted
   that the impact of a protocol cannot solely be deduced from its
   design, but its usage and implementation should also be studied to
   form a full protocol human rights impact assessment.

   The questions are based on the research performed by the hrpc
   research group which has been documented before these considerations.
   The research establishes that human rights relate to standards and
   protocols and offers a common vocabulary of technical concepts that
   impact human rights and how these technical concept can be combined
   to ensure that the Internet remains an enabling environment for human
   rights.  With this the contours of a model for developing human
   rights protocol considerations has taken shape.

6.1.  Human rights threats

   Human rights threats on the Internet come in a myriad of forms.
   Protocols and standards can harm or enable the right to freedom of
   expression, right to non-discrimination, right to equal protection,
   right to participate in cultural life, arts and science, right to
   freedom of assembly and association, and the right to security.  An
   end-user who is denied access to certain services, data or websites
   may be unable to disclose vital information about the malpractices of
   a government or other authority.  A person whose communications are

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 39]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   monitored may be prevented from exercising their right to freedom of
   association or participate in political processes [Penney].  In a
   worst-case scenario, protocols that leak information can lead to
   physical danger.  A realistic example to consider is when individuals
   perceived as threats to the state are subjected to torture or
   extrajudicial killing or detention on the basis of information
   gathered by state agencies through information leakage in protocols.

   This section details several 'common' threats to human rights,
   indicating how each of these can lead to human rights violations/
   harms and present several examples of how these threats to human
   rights materialize on the Internet.  This threat modeling is inspired
   by [RFC6973] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols, which is
   based on the security threat analysis.  This method is by no means a
   perfect solution for assessing human rights risks in Internet
   protocols and systems; it is however the best approach currently
   available.  Certain specific human rights threats are indirectly
   considered in Internet protocols as part of the security
   considerations [BCP72], but privacy guidelines [RFC6973] or reviews,
   let alone human rights impact assessments of protocols are not
   standardized or implemented.

   Many threats, enablers and risks are linked to different rights.
   This is not unsurprising if one takes into account that human rights
   are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.  Here however we're
   not discussing all human rights because not all human rights are
   relevant to ICTs in general and protocols and standards in particular
   [Bless]: "The main source of the values of human rights is the
   International Bill of Human Rights that is composed of the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] along with the International
   Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and the International
   Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].  In the
   light of several cases of Internet censorship, the Human Rights
   Council Resolution 20/8 was adopted in 2012 [UNHRC2016], affirming ".
   . . that the same rights that people have offline must also be
   protected online. . . " . In 2015, the Charter of Human Rights and
   Principles for the Internet [IRP] was developed and released.
   According to these documents, some examples of human rights relevant
   for ICT systems are human dignity (Art. 1 UDHR), non-discrimination
   (Art. 2), rights to life, liberty and security (Art. 3), freedom of
   opinion and expression (Art. 19), freedom of assembly and association
   (Art. 20), rights to equal protection, legal remedy, fair trial, due
   process, presumed innocent (Art. 7-11), appropriate social and
   international order (Art. 28), participation in public affairs (Art.
   21), participation in cultural life, protection of intellectual
   property (Art. 27), and privacy (Art. 12)."  A partial catalog of
   human rights related to ICTs, including economic rights, can be found
   in [Hill2014].

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 40]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   This is by no means an attempt to exclude specific rights or
   prioritize some rights over others.  If other rights seem relevant,
   please contact the authors.

6.2.  Guidelines for human rights considerations

   This section provides guidance for document authors in the form of a
   questionnaire about protocols and their (potential) impact.  The
   questionnaire may be useful at any point in the design process,
   particularly after document authors have developed a high-level
   protocol model as described in [RFC4101].  These guidelines do not
   seek to replace any existing referenced specifications, but rather
   contribute to them and look at the design process from a human rights

   Protocols and Internet Standard might benefit from a documented
   discussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential
   misapplications of the protocol or technology described in the RFC.
   This might be coupled with an Applicability Statement for that RFC.

   Note that the guidance provided in this section does not recommend
   specific practices.  The range of protocols developed in the IETF is
   too broad to make recommendations about particular uses of data or
   how human rights might be balanced against other design goals.
   However, by carefully considering the answers to the following
   questions, document authors should be able to produce a comprehensive
   analysis that can serve as the basis for discussion on whether the
   protocol adequately takes specific human rights threats into account.
   This guidance is meant to help the thought process of a human rights
   analysis; it does not provide specific directions for how to write a
   human rights protocol considerations section (following the example
   set in [RFC6973]), and the addition of a human rights protocol
   considerations section has also not yet been proposed.  In
   considering these questions, authors will need to be aware of the
   potential of technical advances or the passage of time to undermine
   protections.  In general, considerations of rights are likely to be
   more effective if they are considered given a purpose and specific
   use cases, rather than as abstract absolute goals.

6.2.1.  Connectivity

   Question(s): Does your protocol add application-specific functions to
   intermediary nodes?  Could this functionality be added to end nodes
   instead of intermediary nodes?  Is your protocol optimized for low
   bandwidth and high latency connections?  Could your protocol also be
   developed in a stateless manner?

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 41]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   Explanation: The end-to-end principle [Saltzer] holds that 'the
   intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network'
   [RFC1958].  The end-to-end principle is important for the robustness
   of the network and innovation.  Such robustness of the network is
   crucial to enabling human rights like freedom of expression.

   Example: Middleboxes (which can be Content Delivery Networks,
   Firewalls, NATs or other intermediary nodes that provide other
   'services' than routing) serve many legitimate purposes.  But the
   protocols guiding them, can influence individuals' ability to
   communicate online freely and privately.  The potential for abuse and
   intentional and unintentional censoring and limiting permissionless
   innovation, and thus ultimately the impact of middleboxes on the
   Internet as a place of unfiltered, unmonitored freedom of speech, is


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

6.2.2.  Privacy

   Question(s): Did you have a look at the Guidelines in the Privacy
   Considerations for Internet Protocols [RFC6973] section 7?  Could
   your protocol in any way impact the confidentiality of protocol
   metadata?  Could your protocol counter traffic analysis?  Could your
   protocol improve data minimization?  Does your document identify
   potentially sensitive logged data by your protocol and/or for how
   long that needs to be retained for technical reasons?

   Explanation: Privacy refers to the right of an entity (normally a
   person), acting in its own behalf, to determine the degree to which
   it will interact with its environment, including the degree to which
   the entity is willing to share its personal information with others.
   [RFC4949].  If a protocol provides insufficient privacy protection it
   may have a negative impact on freedom of expression as users self-
   censor for fear of surveillance, or find themselves unable to express
   themselves freely.

   Example: See [RFC6973]


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 42]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

6.2.3.  Content agnosticism

   Question(s): If your protocol impacts packet handling, does it use
   user data (packet data that is not included in the header)?  Is it
   making decisions based on the payload of the packet?  Does your
   protocol prioritize certain content or services over others in the
   routing process ? Is the protocol transparent about the
   prioritization that is made (if any)?

   Explanation: Content agnosticism refers to the notion that network
   traffic is treated identically regardless of payload, with some
   exception where it comes to effective traffic handling, for instance
   where it comes to delay tolerant or delay sensitive packets, based on
   the header.

   Example: Content agnosticism prevents payload-based discrimination
   against packets.  This is important because changes to this principle
   can lead to a two-tiered Internet, where certain packets are
   prioritized over others on the basis of their content.  Effectively
   this would mean that although all users are entitled to receive their
   packets at a certain speed, some users become more equal than others.


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to equal protection

6.2.4.  Security

   Question(s): Did you have a look at Guidelines for Writing RFC Text
   on Security Considerations [BCP72]?  Have you found any "attacks that
   are somewhat related to your protocol yet considered out of scope of
   your document?  Would these attacks be pertinent to the human rights
   enabling features of the Internet (as described throughout this

   Explanation: Most people speak of security as if it were a single
   monolithic property of a protocol or system, however, upon reflection
   one realizes that it is clearly not true.  Rather, security is a
   series of related but somewhat independent properties.  Not all of
   these properties are required for every application.  Since
   communications are carried out by systems and access to systems is
   through communications channels, these goals obviously interlock, but
   they can also be independently provided [BCP72].

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 43]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   Example: See [BCP72].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to security

6.2.5.  Internationalization

   Question(s): Does your protocol have text strings that have to be
   understood or entered by humans?  Does your protocol allow Unicode?
   If so, do you accept texts in one charset (which must be UTF-8), or
   several (which is dangerous for interoperability)?  If character sets
   or encodings other than UTF-8 are allowed, does your protocol mandate
   a proper tagging of the charset?  Did you have a look at [RFC6365]?

   Explanation: Internationalization refers to the practice of making
   protocols, standards, and implementations usable in different
   languages and scripts (see Localization).  In the IETF,
   internationalization means to add or improve the handling of non-
   ASCII text in a protocol.  [RFC6365] A different perspective, more
   appropriate to protocols that are designed for global use from the
   beginning, is the definition used by W3C:

        "Internationalization is the design and development of a
        product, application or document content that enables easy
        localization for target audiences that vary in culture, region,
        or language."  {{W3Ci18nDef}}

   Many protocols that handle text only handle one charset (US-ASCII),
   or leave the question of what CCS and encoding are used up to local
   guesswork (which leads, of course, to interoperability problems).  If
   multiple charsets are permitted, they must be explicitly identified
   [RFC2277].  Adding non-ASCII text to a protocol allows the protocol
   to handle more scripts, hopefully representing users across the
   world.  In today's world, that is normally best accomplished by
   allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only.

   In the current IETF policy [RFC2277], internationalization is aimed
   at user-facing strings, not protocol elements, such as the verbs used
   by some text-based protocols.  (Do note that some strings are both
   content and protocol elements, such as the identifiers.)  If the
   Internet wants to be a global network of networks, the protocols

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 44]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   should work with other languages than English and other character
   sets than latin characters.  It is therefore crucial that at least
   the content carried by the protocol can be in any script, and that
   all scripts are treated equally.

   Example: See localization


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

6.2.6.  Censorship resistance

   Question(s): Does this protocol introduce new identifiers or reuse
   existing identifiers (e.g.  MAC addresses) that might be associated
   with persons or content?  Does your protocol make it apparent or
   transparent when access to a resource it restricted?  Can your
   protocol contribute to filtering in a way it could be implemented to
   censor data or services?  Could this be designed to ensure this
   doesn't happen?

   Explanation: Censorship resistance refers to the methods and measures
   to prevent Internet censorship.

   Example: In the development of the IPv6 protocol it was discussed to
   embed a Media Access Control (MAC) address into unique IP addresses.
   This would make it possible for 'eavesdroppers and other information
   collectors to identify when different addresses used in different
   transactions actually correspond to the same node.  [RFC4941] This is
   why Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
   IPv6 have been introduced.  [RFC4941]

   Identifiers of content exposed within a protocol might be used to
   facilitate censorship, as in the case of Application Layer based
   censorship, which affects protocols like HTTP.  Denial or restriction
   of access can be made apparent by the use of status code 451 - which
   allows server operators to operate with greater transparency in
   circumstances where issues of law or public policy affect their
   operation [RFC7725].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 45]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

6.2.7.  Open Standards

   Question(s): Is your protocol fully documented in a way that it could
   be easily implemented, improved, built upon and/or further developed?
   Do you depend on proprietary code for the implementation, running or
   further development of your protocol?  Does your protocol favor a
   particular proprietary specification over technically equivalent and
   competing specification(s), for instance by making any incorporated
   vendor specification "required" or "recommended" [RFC2026]?  Do you
   normatively reference another standard that is not available without
   cost (and could it possible be done without)?  Are you aware of any
   patents that would prevent your standard from being fully implemented
   [RFC3979] [RFC6701]?

   Explanation: The Internet was able to be developed into the global
   network of networks because of the existence of open, non-proprietary
   standards [Zittrain].  They are crucial for enabling
   interoperability.  Yet, open standards are not explicitly defined
   within the IETF.  On the subject, [RFC2026] states: Various national
   and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-
   T, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that are
   similar to Technical Specifications defined at the IETF.  National
   and international groups also publish "implementors' agreements" that
   are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body of
   implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical
   application of their standards.  All of these are considered to be
   "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards
   Process.  Similarly, [RFC3935] does not define open standards but
   does emphasize the importance of 'open process': any interested
   person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and
   make his or her voice heard on the issue.  Part of this principle is
   the IETF's commitment to making its documents, WG mailing lists,
   attendance lists, and meeting minutes publicly available on the

   Open standards are important as they allow for permissionless
   innovation, which is important to maintain the freedom and ability to
   freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the communications
   constructs that currently exist.  It is at the heart of the Internet
   as we know it, and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need
   to be mindful of the need for developing open standards.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 46]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be
   freely available and with reasonable protection for patent
   infringement claims, so it can also be implemented in open source or
   free software.  Patents have often held back open standardization or
   been used against those deploying open standards, particularly in the
   domain of cryptography [newegg].  An exemption of this is sometimes
   made when a protocol is standardized that normatively relies on
   speficiations produced by others SDOs that are not freely available.
   Patents in open standards or in normative references to other
   standards should have a patent disclosure [notewell], royalty-free
   licensing [patentpolicy], or some other form of reasonable
   protection.  Reasonable patent protection should includes but is not
   limited to cryptographic primitives.

   Example: [RFC6108] describes a system for providing critical end-user
   notifications to web browsers, which has been deployed by Comcast, an
   Internet Service Provider (ISP).  Such a notification system is being
   used to provide near-immediate notifications to customers, such as to
   warn them that their traffic exhibits patterns that are indicative of
   malware or virus infection.  There are other proprietary systems that
   can perform such notifications, but those systems utilize Deep Packet
   Inspection (DPI) technology.  In contrast to DPI, this document
   describes a system that does not rely upon DPI, and is instead based
   in open IETF standards and open source applications.


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

6.2.8.  Heterogeneity Support

   Question(s): Does your protocol support heterogeneity by design?
   Does your protocol allow for multiple types of hardware?  Does your
   protocol allow for multiple types of application protocols?  Is your
   protocol liberal in what it receives and handles?  Will it remain
   usable and open if the context changes?  Does your protocol allow
   there to be well-defined extension points?  Do these extension points
   allow for open innovation?

   Explanation: The Internet is characterized by heterogeneity on many
   levels: devices and nodes, router scheduling algorithms and queue
   management mechanisms, routing protocols, levels of multiplexing,
   protocol versions and implementations, underlying link layers (e.g.,
   point-to-point, multi-access links, wireless, FDDI, etc.), in the
   traffic mix and in the levels of congestion at different times and
   places.  Moreover, as the Internet is composed of autonomous

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 47]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   organizations and Internet service providers, each with their own
   separate policy concerns, there is a large heterogeneity of
   administrative domains and pricing structures.  As a result, the
   heterogeneity principle proposed in [RFC1958] needs to be supported
   by design [FIArch].

   Example: Heterogeneity is inevitable and needs be supported by
   design.  Multiple types of hardware must be allowed for, e.g.
   transmission speeds differing by at least 7 orders of magnitude,
   various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from memory-starved
   microprocessors up to massively parallel supercomputers.  Multiple
   types of application protocol must be allowed for, ranging from the
   simplest such as remote login up to the most complex such as
   distributed databases [RFC1958].


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participtation

6.2.9.  Anonymity

   Question(s): Did you have a look at the Privacy Considerations for
   Internet Protocols [RFC6973], especially section 6.1.1 ?

   Explanation: Anonymity refers to the condition of an identity being
   unknown or concealed [RFC4949].  Even though full anonymity is hard
   to achieve, it is a non-binary concept.  Making pervasive monitoring
   and tracking harder is important for many users as well as for the
   IETF [RFC7258].  Achieving a higher level of anonymity is an
   important feature for many end-users, as it allows them different
   degrees of privacy online.

   Example: Often protocols expose personal data, it is important to
   consider ways to mitigate the obvious privacy impacts.  A protocol
   that uses data that could help identify a sender (items of interest)
   should be protected from third parties.  For instance if one wants to
   hide the source/destination IP addresses of a packet, the use of
   IPsec in tunneling mode (e.g., inside a virtual private network) can
   be helpful to protect from third parties likely to eavesdrop packets
   exchanged between the tunnel endpoints.


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to political participation

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 48]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to security

6.2.10.  Pseudonymity

   Question(s): Have you considered the Privacy Considerations for
   Internet Protocols [RFC6973], especially section 6.1.2 ? Does the
   protocol collect personally derived data?  Does the protocol generate
   or process anything that can be, or be tightly correlated with,
   personally identifiable information?  Does the protocol utilize data
   that is personally-derived, i.e. derived from the interaction of a
   single person, or their device or address?  Does this protocol
   generate personally derived data, and if so how will that data be

   Explanation: Pseudonymity - the ability to use a persistent
   identifier not linked to one's offline identity" straight away - is
   an important feature for many end-users, as it allows them different
   degrees of disguised identity and privacy online.

   Example: Designing a standard that exposes personal data, it is
   important to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts.  While
   pseudonyms cannot be simply reverse engineered - some early
   approaches simply took approaches such as simple hashing of IP
   addreses, these could then be simply reversed by generating a hash
   for each potential IP address and comparing it to the pseudonym -
   limiting the exposure of personal data remains important.

   Pseudonymity means using a pseudonym instead of one's "real" name.
   There are many reasons for users to use pseudoyms, for instance to:
   hide their gender, protect themselves against harassment, protect
   their families' privacy, frankly discuss sexuality, or develop a
   artistic or journalistic persona without retribution from an
   employer, (potential) customers, or social surrounding.
   [geekfeminism] The difference between anonymity and pseudonymity is
   that a pseudonym often is persistent.  "Pseudonymity is strengthened
   when less personal data can be linked to the pseudonym; when the same
   pseudonym is used less often and across fewer contexts; and when
   independently chosen pseudonyms are more frequently used for new
   actions (making them, from an observer's or attacker's perspective,
   unlinkable)."  [RFC6973]


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 49]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

6.2.11.  Accessibility

   Question(s): Is your protocol designed to provide an enabling
   environment for people who are not able-bodied?  Have you looked at
   the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative for examples and guidance?

   Explanation: The Internet is fundamentally designed to work for all
   people, whatever their hardware, software, language, culture,
   location, or physical or mental ability.  When the Internet meets
   this goal, it is accessible to people with a diverse range of
   hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability [W3CAccessibility].
   Sometimes in the design of protocols, websites, web technologies, or
   web tools, barriers are created that exclude people from using the

   Example: The HTML protocol as defined in [HTML5] specifically
   requires that every image must have an alt attribute (with a few
   exceptions) to ensure images are accessible for people that cannot
   themselves decipher non-text content in web pages.


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to education

   -  Right to political participation

6.2.12.  Localization

   Question(s): Does your protocol uphold the standards of
   internationalization?  Have made any concrete steps towards
   localizing your protocol for relevant audiences?

   Explanation: Localization refers to the adaptation of a product,
   application or document content to meet the language, cultural and
   other requirements of a specific target market (a locale)
   [W3Ci18nDef].  It is also described as the practice of translating an
   implementation to make it functional in a specific language or for
   users in a specific locale (see Internationalization).

   Example: The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols
   and products are developed with a certain audience in mind, that
   often share particular characteristics like knowing how to read and
   write in ASCII and knowing English.  This limits the ability of a
   large part of the world's online population from using the Internet

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 50]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   in a way that is culturally and linguistically accessible.  An
   example of a protocol that has taken into account the view that
   individuals like to have access to data in their native language can
   be found in [RFC5646].  This protocol labels the information content
   with an identifier for the language in which it is written.  And this
   allows information to be presented in more than one language.


   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts and science

   -  Right to freedom of expression

6.2.13.  Decentralization

   Question(s): Can your protocol be implemented without one single
   point of control?  If applicable, can your protocol be deployed in a
   federated manner?  What is the potential for discrimination against
   users of your protocol?  How can the use of your protocol be used to
   implicate users?  Does your protocol create additional centralized
   points of control?

   Explanation: Decentralization is one of the central technical
   concepts of the architecture of the networks, and embraced as such by
   the IETF [RFC3935].  It refers to the absence or minimization of
   centralized points of control; a feature that is assumed to make it
   easy for new users to join and new uses to unfold [Brown].  It also
   reduces issues surrounding single points of failure, and distributes
   the network such that it continues to function if one or several
   nodes are disabled.  With the commercialization of the Internet in
   the early 1990's there has been a slow move to move away from
   decentralization, to the detriment of the technical benefits of
   having a decentralized Internet.

   Example: The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly susceptible
   to monitoring and censorship, from both governments and Internet
   service providers, as well as third (malicious) parties.  The ability
   to monitor and censor is further enabled by the increased
   centralization of the network that creates central infrastructure
   points that can be tapped in to.  The creation of peer-to-peer
   networks and the development of voice-over-IP protocols using peer-
   to-peer technology in combination with distributed hash table (DHT)
   for scalability are examples of how protocols can preserve
   decentralization [Pouwelse].


ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 51]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

6.2.14.  Reliability

   Question(s): Is your protocol fault tolerant?  Does it degrade
   gracefully?  Can your protocol resist malicious degradation attempts?
   Do you have a documented way to announce degradation?  Do you have
   measures in place for recovery or partial healing from failure?  Can
   your protocol maintain dependability and performance in the face of
   unanticipated changes or circumstances?

   Explanation: Reliability ensures that a protocol will execute its
   function consistently and error resistant as described, and function
   without unexpected result.  A system that is reliable degenerates
   gracefully and will have a documented way to announce degradation.
   It also has mechanisms to recover from failure gracefully, and if
   applicable, allow for partial healing.  It is important here to draw
   a distinction between random degradation and malicious degradation.
   Many current attacks against TLS, for example, exploit TLS's ability
   to gracefully degrade to older cipher suites - from a functional
   perspective, this is good.  From a security perspective, this can be
   very bad.  As with confidentiality, the growth of the Internet and
   fostering innovation in services depends on users having confidence
   and trust [RFC3724] in the network.  For reliability it is necessary
   that services notify the users if a delivery fails.  In the case of
   real-time systems in addition to the reliable delivery the protocol
   needs to safeguard timeliness.

   Example: In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport layer
   requires an indication that transport processing has successfully
   completed, such as given by TCP's ACK message [RFC0793], and not
   simply an indication from the IP layer that the packet arrived.
   Similarly, an application layer protocol may require an application-
   specific acknowledgement that contains, among other things, a status
   code indicating the disposition of the request (See [RFC3724]).


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 52]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

6.2.15.  Confidentiality

   Question(s): Does this protocol expose information related to
   identifiers or data?  If so, does it do so to each other protocol
   entity (i.e., recipients, intermediaries, and enablers) [RFC6973]?
   What options exist for protocol implementers to choose to limit the
   information shared with each entity?  What operational controls are
   available to limit the information shared with each entity?

   What controls or consent mechanisms does the protocol define or
   require before personal data or identifiers are shared or exposed via
   the protocol?  If no such mechanisms or controls are specified, is it
   expected that control and consent will be handled outside of the

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to share different
   pieces of information with different recipients?  If not, are there
   mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide initiators
   with such control?

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to limit which
   information is shared with intermediaries?  If not, are there
   mechanisms that exist outside of the protocol to provide users with
   such control?  Is it expected that users will have relationships that
   govern the use of the information (contractual or otherwise) with
   those who operate these intermediaries?  Does the protocol prefer
   encryption over clear text operation?

   Does the protocol provide ways for initiators to express individuals'
   preferences to recipients or intermediaries with regard to the
   collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data?

   Explanation: Confidentiality refers to keeping your data secret from
   unintended listeners [BCP72].  The growth of the Internet depends on
   users having confidence that the network protects their personal data

   Example: Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire
   content of the communication available to the idealized attacker
   along their path.  Following the advice in [RFC3365], most such
   protocols have a secure variant that encrypts the payload for
   confidentiality, and these secure variants are seeing ever-wider
   deployment.  A noteworthy exception is DNS [RFC1035], as DNSSEC
   [RFC4033]does not have confidentiality as a requirement.  This
   implies that, in the absence of changes to the protocol as presently
   under development in the IETF's DNS Private Exchange (DPRIVE) working
   group, all DNS queries and answers generated by the activities of any
   protocol are available to the attacker.  When store-and-forward

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 53]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   protocols are used (e.g., SMTP [RFC5321]), intermediaries leave this
   data subject to observation by an attacker that has compromised these
   intermediaries, unless the data is encrypted end-to-end by the
   application-layer protocol or the implementation uses an encrypted
   store for this data [RFC7624].


   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to security

6.2.16.  Integrity

   Question(s): Does your protocol maintain, assure and/or verify the
   accuracy of payload data?  Does your protocol maintain and assure the
   consistency of data?  Does your protocol in any way allow for the
   data to be (intentionally or unintentionally) altered?

   Explanation: Integrity refers to the maintenance and assurance of the
   accuracy and consistency of data to ensure it has not been
   (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.

   Example: Integrity verification of data is important to prevent
   vulnerabilities and attacks, like man-in-the-middle-attacks.  These
   attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons)
   intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting themselves
   in the middle changing the content of the data.  In practice this
   looks as follows:

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.
   Corinne forges and sends a message to Bob, impersonating Alice.  Bob
   cannot see the data from Alice was altered by Corinne.
   Corinne intercepts and alters the communication as it is sent between
   Alice and Bob.
   Corinne is able to control the communication content.


   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

6.2.17.  Authenticity

   Question(s): Do you have sufficient measures to confirm the truth of
   an attribute of a single piece of data or entity?  Can the attributes
   get garbled along the way (see security)?  If relevant have you

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 54]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   implemented IPsec, DNSsec, HTTPS and other Standard Security Best

   Explanation: Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from the
   source it claims to come from.  This is important to prevent certain
   attacks or unauthorized access and use of data.

   Example: Authentication of data is important to prevent
   vulnerabilities and attacks, like man-in-the-middle-attacks.  These
   attacks happen when a third party (often for malicious reasons)
   intercepts a communication between two parties, inserting themselves
   in the middle and posing as both parties.  In practice this looks as

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.
   Alice sends data to Bob.
   Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.
   Corinne reads (and potentially alters) the message to Bob.
   Bob cannot see the data did not come from Alice but from Corinne.

   When there is proper authentication the scenario would be as follows:

   Alice wants to communicate with Bob.
   Alice sends data to Bob.
   Corinne intercepts the data sent to Bob.
   Corinne reads and alters the message to Bob.
   Bob can see the data did not come from Alice but from Corinne.


   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

6.2.18.  Adaptability

   Question(s): Is your protocol written in such a way that is would be
   easy for other protocols to be developed on top of it, or to interact
   with it?  Does your protocol impact permissionless innovation?  See
   'Connectivity' above.

   Explanation: Adaptability is closely interrelated with permissionless
   innovation, both maintain the freedom and ability to freely create
   and deploy new protocols on top of the communications constructs that
   currently exist.  It is at the heart of the Internet as we know it,
   and to maintain its fundamentally open nature, we need to be mindful

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 55]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   of the impact of protocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless
   innovation to ensure the Internet can continue to develop.

   Example: WebRTC generates audio and/or video data.  In order to
   ensure that WebRTC can be used in different locations by different
   parties it is important that standard Javascript APIs are developed
   to support applications from different voice service providers.
   Multiple parties will have similar capabilities, in order to ensure
   that all parties can build upon existing standards these need to be
   adaptable, and allow for permissionless innovation.


   -  Right to education

   -  Freedom of expression

   -  Freedom of assembly and association

6.2.19.  Outcome Transparency

   Question(s): Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily
   comprehensible, including with respect to unintended consequences of
   protocol choices?

   Explanation: certain technical choice may have unintended

   Example: lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and
   negative externalities, of which spam is an example.  Lack of data
   that could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called
   "free" arrangements which obscure the actual costs and distribution
   of the costs, for example the barter arrangements that are commonly
   used for Internet interconnection; and the commercial exploitation of
   personal data for targeted advertising which is the most common
   funding model for the so-called "free" services such as search
   engines and social networks.

   Impacts: - Freedom of expression - Privacy - Freedom of assembly and
   association - Access to information

7.  Document Status

   This document has been developed within the framework of the Human
   Rights Protocols Considerations Research Group, based on discussions
   on the hrpc mailinglist and during hrpc sessions, where this document
   also has been extensively discussed.  The document has received
   eleven in-depth reviews on list, and received many comments from

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 56]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   inside and outside the IRTF and IETF community.  The research group
   has reached consensus on publishing this document as informational
   research group consensus document.

8.  Acknowledgements

   A special thanks to all members of the hrpc RG who contributed to
   this draft.  The following deserve a special mention:

   -  Joana Varon for helping draft the first iteration of the
      methodology, previous drafts and the direction of the film Net of
      Rights and working on the interviews at IETF92 in Dallas.

   -  Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg) for helping with the first iteration of
      the glossary as well as a lot of technical guidance, support and
      language suggestions.

   -  Claudio Guarnieri for writing the first iterations of the case
      studies on VPN, HTTP, and Peer to Peer.

   -  Will Scott for writing the first iterations of the case studies on
      DNS, IP, XMPP.

   -  Avri Doria for proposing writing a glossary in the first place,
      help with writing the initial proposals and Internet Drafts, her
      reviews and contributions to the glossary.

   and Stephane Bortzmeyer, John Curran, Barry Shein, Joe Hall, Joss
   Wright, Harry Halpin, and Tim Sammut who made a lot of excellent
   suggestions, many of which found their way directly into the text.
   We want to thank Amelia Andersdotter, Stephen Farrell, Stephane
   Bortzemeyer, Shane Kerr, Giovane Moura, James Gannon, Alissa Cooper,
   Andrew Sullivan, S.  Moonesamy, Roland Bless and Scott Craig for
   their reviews and testing the HRPC guidelines in the wild.  We would
   also like to thank Molly Sauter, Arturo Filasto, Nathalie Marechal,
   Eleanor Saitta, Richard Hill and all others who provided input on the
   draft or the conceptualization of the idea.  Thanks to Edward Snowden
   for his comments regarding the impact of protocols on the rights of
   users at IETF93.

9.  Security Considerations

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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 57]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

11.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   Research Group is located at the e-mail address [3].
   Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
   list is at

   Archives of the list can be found at:

12.  References

12.1.  Informative References

   [Abbate]   Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press , 2000,

   [Abibil]   Danchev, D., "Dissecting 'Operation Ababil' - an OSINT
              Analysis", 2012, <

   [Adrian]   Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P.,
              Green, M., Halderman, J., Heninger, N., Springall, D.,
              Thome, E., Valenta, L., VanderSloot, B., Wustrow, E.,
              Zanella Beguelin, S., and P. Zimmermann, "Imperfect
              Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice",
              ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
              2015: 5-17 , 2015.

              Alshalan, A., Pisharody, S., and D. Huang, "A Survey of
              Mobile VPN Technologies", 2016,

   [APIP]     Naylor, D., Mukerjee, M., and P. Steenkiste, "Balancing
              accountability and privacy in the network", SIGCOMM '14
              Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on SIGCOMM Pages
              75-86 , 2014, <

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 58]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

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

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

              Aryan, S., Aryan, H., and J. Alex Halderman, "Internet
              Censorship in Iran: A First Look", 2013,

   [Babbie]   Babbie, E., "The Basics of Social Research", Belmont CA
              Cengage , 2010.

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

   [BCP72]    IETF, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security
              Considerations", 2003, <

   [Benkler]  Benkler, Y., "The wealth of Networks - How social
              production transforms markets and freedom", New Haven and
              London - Yale University Press , 2006,

              Berners-Lee, T. and M. Fischetti, "Weaving the Web,",
              HarperCollins p 208, 1999.

              Berners-Lee, T. and H. Halpin, "Defend the Web", 2012,

              Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti,
              A., and P. Strub, "Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters:
              Breaking and Fixing Authentication over TLS", IEEE
              Symposium on Security and Privacy 2014: 98-113 , 2014.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 59]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

              Bitmessage, "Bitmessage Wiki?", 2014,

   [Bless]    Bless, R. and C. Orwat, "Values and Networks", 2015.

              Broeders, D., "The public core of the Internet", WRR ,

   [Brown]    Brown, I. and M. Ziewitz, "A Prehistory of Internet
              Governance", Research Handbook on Governance of the
              Internet. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. , 2013.

              Brown, I., Clark, D., and D. Trossen, "Should specific
              values be embedded in the Internet Architecture?",
              Sigcomm , 2010, <

              Brown, I. and C. Marsden, "Regulating code", MIT Press ,
              2013, <>.

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

   [Cath]     Cath, C., "A Case Study of Coding Rights: Should Freedom
              of Speech Be Instantiated in the Protocols and Standards
              Designed by the Internet Engineering Task Force?", 2015,

              Cath, C. and L. Floridi, "The Design of the Internet's
              Architecture by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
              and Human Rights", July 2017.

   [Clark]    Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
              Protocols", Proc SIGCOMM 88, ACM CCR Vol 18, Number 4,
              August 1988, pp. 106-114. , 1988.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 60]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

              Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R. Braden,
              "Tussle in cyberspace - defining tomorrow's Internet", ACM
              Digital Library , 2005, <

   [CoE]      Council of Europe, "Applications to ICANN for community-
              based new generic top level domains: Opportunities and
              challenges from a human rights perspective", 2016,

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

              Davidson, A., Morris, J., and R. Courtney, "Strangers in a
              strange land", Telecommunications Policy Research
              Conference , 2002,

              Denardis, L., "The Global War for Internet Governance",
              Yale University Press , 2014,

              Denardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between
              Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of
              Computing (volume 37-2) , 2015, <>.

   [Denzin]   Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln, "Handbook of Qualitative
              Research", Thousand Oaks CA Sage , 2000,

   [dict] WebFinance, Inc., "Reliability
              (dictionary entry)", 2016,

   [Doty]     Doty, N., "Automated text analysis of Requests for Comment
              (RFCs)", 2014, <>.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 61]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

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

   [Dutton]   Dutton, W., "Freedom of Connection, Freedom of Expression:
              the Changing legal and regulatory Ecology Shaping the
              Internet.", 2011, <

   [Farrow]   Farrow, R., "Source Address Spoofing", 2016,

   [FIArch]   "Future Internet Design Principles", January 2012,

   [FOC]      Ministers of the Freedom Online Coalition, "The Tallinn
              Agenda - Recommendations for Freedom Online", 2014,

              ISO/IEC, ., "Information technology - Framework for
              internationalization, prepared by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22/WG
              20 ISO/IEC TR 11017", 1997.

              Franklin, U., "The Real World of Technology", 1999,

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

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

              Geek Feminism Wiki, "Pseudonymity", 2015,

   [Geertz]   Clifford, G., "Kinship in Bali", Chicago University of
              Chicago Press. , 1975,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 62]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

              Google, ., "Method and device for network traffic
              manipulation", 2012, <

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

              Villeneuve, N., "Iran DDoS", 2009,

              Greenwald, G., "XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly
              everything a user does on the internet'", 2013,

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

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

              Hill, R., "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT
              Activities", 2014,

   [Hornet]   Chen, C., Asoni, D., Barrera, D., Danezis, G., and A.
              Perrig, "HORNET: High-speed Onion Routing at the Network
              Layer", CCS '15 Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC
              Conference on Computer and Communications Security Pages
              1441-1454 , 2015, <

   [HRC2012]  United Nations Human Rights Council, "UN General Assembly
              Resolution "The right to privacy in the digital age"
              (A/C.3/68/L.45)", 2011,

   [HTML5]    W3C, "HTML5", 2014, <>.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 63]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [ICCPR]    United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Civil and Political Rights", 1976,

   [ICESCR]   United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", 1966,

              Schiess, N., "Vulnerabilities & attack vectors of VPNs (Pt
              1)", 2013, <

   [IRP]      Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, "10
              Internet Rights & Principles", 2014,

   [Jabri]    Jabri, V., "Discourses on Violence - conflict analysis
              reconsidered", Manchester University Press , 1996.

   [Kaye]     Kaye, D., "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
              promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
              opinion and expression", 2016,

   [King]     King, C., "Power, Social Violence and Civil Wars",
              Washington D.C. United States Institute of Peace Press ,

   [Lessig]   Lessig, L., "Code - And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version
              2.0.", New York Basic Books , 2006, <>.

   [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, <

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 64]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [Meyer]    Meyer, J., "Defining and Evaluating Resilience: A
              Performability Perspective, presentation at International
              Workshop on Performability Modeling of Computer and
              Communication Systems.", 2009.

   [Mueller]  Mueller, M., "Networks and States", MIT Press , 2010,

   [Musiani]  Musiani, F., "Giants, Dwarfs and Decentralized
              Alternatives to Internet-based Services - An Issue of
              Internet Governance", Westminister Papers in Communication
              and Culture , 2015, <>.

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

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

              NETmundial, "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement", 2014,

   [newegg]   Mullin, J., "Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites
              the history of encryption", 2013, <

              IETF, "Note Well", 2015, <

              W3C, "W3C Patent Policy", 2004,

   [Penney]   Penney, J., "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and
              Wikipedia Use", 2016, <

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 65]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

              Peterson, A., Gellman, B., and A. Soltani, "Yahoo to make
              SSL encryption the default for Webmail users. Finally.",
              2013, <

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

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

              Pouwelse, Ed, J., "Media without censorship", 2012,

              Rachovitsa, A., "Engineering 'Privacy by Design' in the
              Internet Protocols - Understanding Online Privacy both as
              a Technical and a Human Rights Issue in the Face of
              Pervasive Monitoring", International Journal of Law and
              Information Technology , 2015, <

   [RFC0226]  Karp, P., "Standardization of host mnemonics", RFC 226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0226, September 1971,

   [RFC0760]  Postel, J., "DoD standard Internet Protocol", RFC 760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0760, January 1980,

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

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 66]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [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, <>.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,

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

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

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

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <>.

   [RFC2775]  Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,

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

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 67]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [RFC3536]  Hoffman, P., "Terminology Used in Internationalization in
              the IETF", RFC 3536, DOI 10.17487/RFC3536, May 2003,

   [RFC3724]  Kempf, J., Ed., 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,

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,

   [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March 2005,

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,

   [RFC4084]  Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
              Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,
              May 2005, <>.

   [RFC4101]  Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005,

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 68]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
              September 2009, <>.

   [RFC5694]  Camarillo, G., Ed. and IAB, "Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
              Architecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and
              Applicability", RFC 5694, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694, November
              2009, <>.

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

   [RFC6101]  Freier, A., Karlton, P., and P. Kocher, "The Secure
              Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0", RFC 6101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6101, August 2011,

   [RFC6108]  Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.
              Van Lieu, "Comcast's Web Notification System Design",
              RFC 6108, DOI 10.17487/RFC6108, February 2011,

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

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,

   [RFC6698]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
              2012, <>.

   [RFC6701]  Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
              Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,

   [RFC6797]  Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
              Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 69]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [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,

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <>.

   [RFC7469]  Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,

   [RFC7574]  Bakker, A., Petrocco, R., and V. Grishchenko, "Peer-to-
              Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)", RFC 7574,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7574, July 2015,

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,

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

   [RFC7725]  Bray, T., "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles",
              RFC 7725, DOI 10.17487/RFC7725, February 2016,

   [RFC7754]  Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.
              Nordmark, "Technical Considerations for Internet Service
              Blocking and Filtering", RFC 7754, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,
              March 2016, <>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <>.

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 70]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

   [RFC8164]  Nottingham, M. and M. Thomson, "Opportunistic Security for
              HTTP/2", RFC 8164, DOI 10.17487/RFC8164, May 2017,

   [Richie]   Richie, J. and J. Lewis, "Qualitative Research Practice -
              A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers",
              London Sage , 2003, <

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

   [RSF]      RSF, "Syria using 34 Blue Coat Servers to spy on Internet
              users", 2013, <

   [Saltzer]  Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, "End-to-End Arguments
              in System Design", ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, November
              1984, pp 277-288. , 1984.

              Sandvine, "Sandvine: Over 70% Of North American Traffic Is
              Now Streaming Video And Audio", 2015,

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

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

              Schroeder, I. and B. Schmidt, "Introduction - Violent
              Imaginaries and Violent Practice", London and New York
              Routledge , 2001, <

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 71]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

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

              Marlinspike, M., "Software >> sslstrip", 2011,

   [techyum]  Violet, ., "Official - Link Shortener Seized by
              Libyan Government", 2010, <

              The Tor Project, ., "Tor Project - Anonymity Online",
              2007, <>.

              Van der Sar, E., "Proposal for research on human rights
              protocol considerations", 2015, <

              Andy, ., "LAWYERS SENT 109,000 PIRACY THREATS IN GERMANY
              DURING 2013", 2014, <

   [tribler]  Delft University of Technology, Department EWI/PDS/
              Tribler, "About Tribler", 2013, <

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

              United Nations General Assembly, "UN General Assembly
              Resolution "The right to privacy in the digital age"
              (A/C.3/68/L.45)", 2013,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 72]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

              United Nations Human Rights Council, "UN Human Rights
              Council Resolution "The promotion, protection and
              enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" (A/HRC/32/
              L.20)", 2016, <https://documents-dds-

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

              W3C, "Accessibility", 2015,

              W3C, "Localization vs. Internationalization", 2010,

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

              Wikipedia, "Tempora", 2016,

   [WSJ]      Sonne, P. and M. Coker, "Firms Aided Libyan Spies", 2011,

              Wynsberghe, A. and G. Moura, "The concept of embedded
              values and the example of internet security", 2013,

ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 73]
Internet-Draft                    hrpcr                        July 2017

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

              Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet - And How to
              Stop It", Yale University Press , 2008,

12.2.  URIs

   [1] mailto:node@domain/home

   [2] mailto:node@domain/work


Authors' Addresses

   Niels ten Oever


   Corinne Cath
   Oxford Internet Institute


ten Oever & Cath        Expires January 17, 2018               [Page 74]