Hi Milton,

On 04/13/2017 05:08 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> Great you're following this. I think the design of a system can 
>> have some properties that makes is harder or easier to infringe on 
>> rights.
> 
> I don't. Rights are not technical protocols, they are legal, 
> political and societal constructs. A technical protocol tells you
> how to block a domain; it is very difficult , probably impossible,
> for a protocol to dictate _why_ you block a domain.
> 

Rights are not protocol, and protocols are not rights. But not influence
each other. Protocols in design and implementation are socio-technical
orderings of reality that make it easier of harder for people to
exercise their rights.

>> To make the analogy to spam: when I receive spam in my spamfolder, 
>> I can still read it. Spam that is blocked, I cannot read.
> 
> That's an analogy. But RPZ is not a spam filter. As McTim pointed 
> out, the whole purpose of RPZ is to block domains, not to set them 
> aside
> 

And I still do not understand why that is, and this seems not to have
been part of the deliberations during the design.

>> With RPZ I think there is a risk that content get's blocked
>> because people don't like it, not because it's malware. And it does
>> so without the consent of the user, or even without informing
>> them.
> 
> In some cases, the user is the blocker. It might be possible for the 
> RFC to specify that users who attempt to access RPZ-blocked domains 
> would receive a warning or an explanation.
> 

That is exactly what I am advocating for; transparency, accountability
and access to remedy.

Best,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9