





Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                         N. ten Oever
Request for Comments: 8280                                    ARTICLE 19
Category: Informational                                          C. Cath
ISSN: 2070-1721                                Oxford Internet Institute
                                                            October 2017


           Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations

Abstract

   This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights
   considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for
   privacy considerations (RFC 6973).  The other parts of this document
   explain the background of the guidelines and how they were developed.

   This document is the first milestone in a longer-term research
   effort.  It has been reviewed by the Human Rights Protocol
   Considerations (HRPC) Research Group and also by individuals from
   outside the research group.

Status of This Memo

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

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
   deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Human Rights
   Protocol Considerations Research Group of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
   a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of
   RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8280.













Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.








































Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
   2. Vocabulary Used .................................................6
   3. Research Questions .............................................12
   4. Literature and Discussion Review ...............................12
   5. Methodology ....................................................15
      5.1. Data Sources ..............................................17
           5.1.1. Discourse Analysis of RFCs .........................17
           5.1.2. Interviews with Members of the IETF Community ......17
           5.1.3. Participant Observation in Working Groups ..........17
      5.2. Data Analysis Strategies ..................................18
           5.2.1. Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts
                  That Relate to Human Rights ........................18
           5.2.2. Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts ........20
           5.2.3. Mapping 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 ......40
      6.1. Human Rights Threats ......................................40
      6.2. Guidelines for Human Rights Considerations ................42
           6.2.1. Connectivity .......................................43
           6.2.2. Privacy ............................................43
           6.2.3. Content Agnosticism ................................44
           6.2.4. Security ...........................................45
           6.2.5. Internationalization ...............................46
           6.2.6. Censorship Resistance ..............................47
           6.2.7. Open Standards .....................................48
           6.2.8. Heterogeneity Support ..............................50
           6.2.9. Anonymity ..........................................51
           6.2.10. Pseudonymity ......................................51
           6.2.11. Accessibility .....................................53
           6.2.12. Localization ......................................53
           6.2.13. Decentralization ..................................54
           6.2.14. Reliability .......................................55
           6.2.15. Confidentiality ...................................56
           6.2.16. Integrity .........................................58
           6.2.17. Authenticity ......................................59
           6.2.18. Adaptability ......................................60
           6.2.19. Outcome Transparency ..............................61
   7. Security Considerations ........................................61
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................61
   9. Research Group Information .....................................62
   10. Informative References ........................................62
   Acknowledgements ..................................................80
   Authors' Addresses ................................................81





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


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."  [Berners-Lee]

   "The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF."
   [RFC3935]

   The ever-growing interconnectedness of the 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 have 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 [UNGA2013]
   [NETmundial].  It has also been argued that the Internet should be
   strengthened as an enabling environment for human rights [Brown].

   This document aims to (1) expose the relationship between protocols
   and human rights, (2) propose possible guidelines to protect the
   Internet as an enabling environment for human rights in future
   protocol development, in a manner similar to the work done for
   privacy considerations [RFC6973], and (3) increase the awareness, in
   both the human rights community and the technical community, of the
   importance of the technical workings of the Internet and its impact
   on human rights.

   Document authors who want to apply this work to their own can go
   directly to Section 6 of this document.

   Open, secure, and reliable connectivity is necessary (although not
   sufficient) to exercise human rights such as freedom of expression
   and freedom of association [FOC], as defined in the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR].  The purpose of the Internet is
   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 and gather information;
   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 contributes to the strengthening of
   the Internet as an enabling environment for human rights.  One could
   even argue that the Internet is not only an enabler of human rights
   but that human rights lie at the base of, and are ingrained in, the
   architecture of the networks that make up the Internet.  Internet



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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.  [Bless1],
   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 precondition 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.  To do this, it is
   crucial that the impacts on rights are clearly documented in order to
   mitigate potential harm.  This research aims to ultimately contribute
   to making that process tangible and practical for protocol
   developers.  Technology can never be fully equated with a human
   right.  Whereas a specific technology might be a 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.

   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 have been forced to
   compete with other values.  Therefore, important characteristics of
   the Internet that enable human rights might be degraded if they're
   not properly defined, described, and protected as such.  Conversely,
   not protecting characteristics that enable human rights could also
   result in (partial) loss of functionality and connectivity, along
   with 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.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   The IETF has produced guidelines and procedures to ensure and
   galvanize the privacy of individuals and security of the network in
   protocol development.  This document aims to explore the possibility
   of developing 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 Section 6 of this document, document authors should be
   (1) 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 (2) potentially stimulated
   to think about alternative design choices.

   This document was developed within the framework of the Human Rights
   Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group, based on discussions
   on the HRPC mailing list (Section 9); this document was also
   extensively discussed during HRPC sessions.  This document has
   received eleven in-depth reviews on the mailing list, and it received
   many comments from inside and outside the IRTF and IETF communities.

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.  It builds as
   much as possible on existing definitions; when definitions were not
   available in IETF documents, definitions were taken from other
   Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) or academic literature.

   Accessibility:  "Full Internet Connectivity", as described in
      [RFC4084], to provide unfettered access to the Internet.

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

      The ability to receive information available on the Internet.

   Anonymity:  The condition of an identity being unknown or concealed
      [RFC4949].

   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].




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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"
      [RFC7754].

   Censorship:  Technical mechanisms, including 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
      censorship.

   Confidentiality:  The property that data is not disclosed to system
      entities unless they have been authorized to know the data
      [RFC4949].

   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 end-to-end principle, interoperability, distributed
      architecture, resilience, reliability, and robustness in
      combination constitute the enabling factors that result in
      connectivity to, and on, the Internet.

   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 principle:  The principle that application-specific
      functions should not be embedded into the network and thus stay at
      the endpoints.  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 endpoints 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



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      fundamental papers by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark [Saltzer] [Clark].
      In these papers, the authors argue in favor of radical
      simplification: system designers should only build the essential
      and shared functions into the network, as most functions can only
      be implemented at network endpoints.  Building features into the
      network for the benefit of certain applications will come at the
      expense of others.  As such, in 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 it protects the robustness of the network.
      [RFC2775] further elaborates on various aspects of end-to-end
      connectivity.

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

   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 autonomous organizations and internet service providers, each
      with their own separate policy concerns, there is a large
      heterogeneity of administrative domains and pricing structures."
      [FIArch]

      As a result, per [FIArch], the heterogeneity principle proposed in
      [RFC1958] needs to be supported by design.

   Human rights:  Principles and norms that are indivisible,
      interrelated, unalienable, universal, and mutually reinforcing.
      Human rights 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 aspirations from [UDHR] were later codified into treaties such
      as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
      [ICCPR] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
      Cultural Rights [ICESCR], after which signatory countries were





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      obliged to reflect them in their national bodies of law.  There is
      also a broad recognition that not only states have obligations
      vis-a-vis human rights, but non-state actors do as well.

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

   Internationalization (i18n):  The practice of making protocols,
      standards, and implementations usable in different languages and
      scripts (see Section 6.2.12 ("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 the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) [W3Ci18nDef]:
      "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 they 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
      scripts in use 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.

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

   Localization (l10n):  The practice of translating an implementation
      to make it functional in a specific language or for users in a
      specific locale (see Section 6.2.5 ("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, script, or culture.  Some internationalized
      applications can handle a wide variety of languages.  Typical
      users only understand a small number of languages, so the program



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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
      scheme.

   Open standards:  Conform with [RFC2026], which states the following:
      "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 on 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 and other values such as freedom of association and
      freedom of speech.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      The right to privacy is also recognized in nearly every national
      constitution and in most international human rights treaties.  It
      has been adjudicated upon by both 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:  Ensures that a protocol will execute its function
      consistently as described and function without unexpected results.
      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 resistance to involuntary, legal, or malicious
      attempts to disrupt their modes of operation [RFC760] [RFC791]
      [RFC793] [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
      operation.

   Scalability:  The ability to handle increased or decreased system
      parameters (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
      magnitude.

   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 of
      "strong encryption", this refers to an amount of computing power
      currently not available, not even to major state-level actors.

   Transparency:  In this context, linked to the comprehensibility of a
      protocol in relation to the choices it makes for users, 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
      users, protocol developers, and implementers, including the
      comprehensibility of possible unintended consequences of protocol
      choices (e.g., lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity
      and negative externalities).



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


3.  Research Questions

   The Human Rights Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group in the
   Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) embarked on its mission to answer
   the following two questions, which are also the main two questions
   that this document seeks to answer:

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

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

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 do they exist 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,
   [RFC7258] ("Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack"), 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 reveals 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 are embedded into the design.
   Often, these design decisions are partly "purely technical" and
   partly inspired by a 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 to minimize engagement with
   political processes and non-protocol-related political issues.

   Since the late 1990s, a burgeoning group of academics and
   practitioners researched questions surrounding the societal impact of
   protocols, as well as the politics of protocols.  These studies vary
   in focus and scope: some focus on specific standards [Davidson-etal]
   [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
   translated into technology [Abbate] [CathFloridi] [DeNardis15]
   [WynsbergheMoura].





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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; see [Benkler],
   [Brown-etal], [DeNardis15], [Lessig], [Mueller], and [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 an end user's experience of,
   and trust in, the Internet [DeNardis14].  The role that 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 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 [Brown-etal] [Clark-etal] [DeNardis14] [CathFloridi] [Lessig]
   [Rachovitsa].

   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. [Clark-etal] 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."  They hold that human rights
   should not be hard-coded into protocols for 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. [Brown-etal] 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. recognize 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 on the values proclaimed in the Universal
   Declaration of Human Rights.  In looking for the most legitimate set




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 of whether (1) a particular value system
   should be embedded into the Internet's architectures or (2) the
   architectures need to account for a varying set of values.

   A third position, which is similar to that of Brown et al., is taken
   by [Broeders], in which Broeders 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 those of [Clark-etal] and [Brown-etal]
   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 [Bless2] 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
   systems."

   Berners-Lee and Halpin [BernersLeeHalpin] represent a fifth position.
   They argue that the Internet could lead to even newer 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 and of
   itself if it is taken to be a precondition for other rights, even if
   it could not have been predicted at the time that the UDHR was
   written (after the end of World War II).

   It is important to contextualize the technical discussion with the
   academic discussions on this issue.  The academic discussions are
   also important to document, as they inform the position of the
   authors of this document.  The research group's position is that
   hard-coding human rights into protocols is complicated and changes
   with the context.  At this point, it is difficult to say whether or
   not hard-coding human rights into protocols is wise or feasible.
   Additionally, there are many human rights, but not all are relevant
   for information and communications technologies (ICTs).  A partial



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   catalog (with references to sources) of human rights related to ICTs
   can be found in [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 that
   protocols can have on human rights, for both developers and users.
   In addition, it contributes to (1) the careful consideration of the
   impact that a specific protocol might have on human rights and
   (2) the dissemination of the practice of documenting protocol design
   decisions related to human rights.

   Pursuant to the principle of constant change, because the function
   and scope of the Internet evolve, so does the role of the IETF in
   developing standards.  Internet Standards are adopted based on 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]
   [RFC2775] [RFC3439] [RFC3724].

   This document details the steps taken in the research into human
   rights protocol considerations by the HRPC Research Group to clarify
   the relationship 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 relationship between human rights, protocols, and
   architectures is a new research challenge that 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 the language contained within these texts is used to construct
   meaning and representation."  This process happens in society
   [Denzin] and manifests itself in institutions and organizations
   [King], exposed using the ethnographic methods of semi-structured
   interviews and participant observation.  Or, in non-academic



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   language, the way the language in IETF/IRTF documents describes and
   approaches the issues they are trying to address is an indication of
   the underlying social assumptions and relationships 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 relationship 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
   "Bigbang" tool, 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 [Ritchie].  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", and individuals working for
   specific entities (corporate, civil society, political, academic) and
   represented various backgrounds, nationalities, and genders.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.1.  Data Sources

   In order to map the potential relationship between human rights and
   protocols, the HRPC Research Group gathered data from three specific
   sources:

5.1.1.  Discourse Analysis of RFCs

   To start addressing the issue, a mapping exercise analyzing Internet
   infrastructure and protocol features vis-a-vis their possible impact
   on human rights was undertaken.  Therefore, research on (1) the
   language used in current and historic RFCs and (2) information
   gathered from mailing-list discussions was undertaken to expose core
   architectural principles, language, and deliberations on the human
   rights of those affected by the network.

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), chairs of selected working groups,
   and RFC authors were done at the IETF 92 meeting in Dallas in
   March 2015 to get an insider's understanding of how they view the
   relationship (if any) between human rights and protocols, and how
   this relationship plays out in their work.  Several of the
   participants opted to remain anonymous.  If you are interested in
   this data set, please contact the authors of this document.

5.1.3.  Participant Observation in Working Groups

   By participating in various working groups, in person at IETF
   meetings, and on mailing lists, information about the IETF's
   day-to-day workings was gathered, from which general themes,
   technical concepts, and use cases about human rights and protocols
   were extracted.  This process started at the IETF 91 meeting in
   Honolulu and continues today.















Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


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 is needed:

5.2.1.  Identifying Qualities of Technical Concepts That Relate to Human
        Rights

5.2.1.1.  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
   created.  In order to determine the enabling (or inhibiting)
   features, we relied on direct references in the RFCs as related to
   such impacts, as well as input from the community.  Based on this
   analysis, a list of RFCs that describe standards and protocols that
   are potentially closely related to human rights was compiled.

5.2.1.2.  Extracting Concepts from Selected RFCs

   The first step was to identify the protocols and standards that are
   related to human rights and to create an environment that enables
   human rights.  For that, we needed to focus on specific technical
   concepts that underlie these protocols and standards.  Based on this
   list, a number of technical concepts that appeared frequently were
   extracted and used to create a second list of technical terms that,
   when combined and applied in different circumstances, create an
   enabling environment for exercising human rights on the Internet.

5.2.1.3.  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; if the definitions were not available therein,
   definitions were taken from other SDOs or academic literature, as
   indicated in Section 2.






Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.1.4.  Translating Human Rights Concepts into Technical Definitions

   The previous steps allowed for the clarification of relationships
   between human rights and technical concepts.  The steps taken show
   how the research process "zoomed in", from compiling a broad list 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 subsection presents the next step: translating human rights to
   technical concepts by matching the individual 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.

5.2.1.5.  List of Technical Terms That, When Partially Combined, Can
          Create an Enabling Environment for Human Rights

   Based on the prior steps, the following list of technical terms was
   drafted.  When partially combined, this list can create an enabling
   environment for human rights, such as freedom of expression and
   freedom of association.

     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: Relationship between Architectural Principles and Enabling
                         Features for User Rights




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.2.  Relating Human Rights to Technical Concepts

   The technical concepts listed in the steps above have been grouped
   according to their impact on specific rights, as mentioned in the
   interviews done at IETF 92 as well as the study of literature (see
   Section 4 ("Literature and Discussion Review") above).

   This analysis aims to assist protocol developers in better
   understanding the roles that specific technical concepts have with
   regard to their contribution to an enabling environment for people to
   exercise their human rights.

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

   +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | 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, and               |
   | Censorship resistance | Right to education                      |
   | Accessibility         |                                         |




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | Connectivity          |                                         |
   | Decentralization      |                                         |
   | Censorship resistance | Right to freedom of assembly            |
   | Pseudonymity          |    and association                      |
   | Anonymity             |                                         |
   | Security              |                                         |
   +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
   | Reliability           |                                         |
   | Confidentiality       |                                         |
   | Integrity             | Right to security                       |
   | Authenticity          |                                         |
   | Anonymity             |                                         |
   |                       |                                         |
   +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+

        Figure 2: Relationship between Specific Technical Concepts
       with Regard to Their Contribution to an Enabling Environment
                 for People to Exercise Their Human Rights

5.2.3.  Mapping 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, implementations, and networking paradigms that either
   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 is it an exhaustive listing of all
   the potential negative or positive impacts on human rights that these
   protocols might have.  When these protocols were conceived, there
   were many criteria to take into account.  For instance, relying on a
   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 freedom of speech," it does not mean that protocol X is bad,
   much less that its authors were evil.  The goal here is to show, with
   actual examples, that the design of protocols has practical
   consequences for some human rights and that these consequences have
   to be considered in the design phase.









Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.3.1.  IPv4

   The Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4), also known as "Layer 3" of
   the Internet and specified with a common encapsulation and protocol
   header, is defined in [RFC791].  The evolution of Internet
   communications led to continued development in this area,
   "encapsulated" in the development of version 6 (IPv6) of the protocol
   [RFC8200].  In spite of this updated protocol, we find that 23 years
   after the specification of IPv6 the older IPv4 standard continues to
   account for a sizable majority of Internet traffic.  Most of the
   issues discussed here (Network Address Translators (NATs) are a major
   exception; see Section 5.2.3.1.2 ("Address Translation and
   Mobility")) 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 IP
   [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,
   thereby restricting the communications of end hosts.  These
   capabilities for network control and for limitations on freedom of
   expression by end hosts can be traced back to the design of IPv4,
   helping us to understand which technical protocol decisions have led
   to harm to this human right.  A feature that can harm freedom of
   expression as well as the right to privacy through misuse of IP is
   the exploitation of the public visibility of the host pairs for all
   communications and the corresponding ability to differentiate and
   block traffic as a result of that metadata.

5.2.3.1.1.  Network Visibility of Source and Destination

   The IPv4 protocol header contains fixed location fields for both the
   source IP address and destination IP address [RFC791].  These
   addresses identify both the host sending and the host receiving each
   message; they also 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 [RFC894].



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   A variety of alternative designs do exist, such as the Accountable
   and Private Internet Protocol [APIP] and High-speed Onion Routing at
   the Network Layer (HORNET) [HORNET] as well as source routing.  The
   latter would allow the sender to choose a predefined (safe) route and
   spoofing of the source IP address, which are technically supported by
   IPv4, 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.

5.2.3.1.2.  Address Translation and Mobility

   A major structural shift in the Internet that undermined the protocol
   design of IPv4, and significantly reduced the freedom of end users to
   communicate and assemble, was 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 them.
   This process puts the router performing the translation in a
   privileged position, where it is predetermined which subset of
   communications will be translated.

   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 that may
   move -- encoded instead as an option in IP [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 Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) (as well as other connections
   used for privacy purposes), as NATs sometimes cause VPNs not to work.

5.2.3.2.  DNS

   The Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035] provides service discovery
   capabilities and provides a mechanism to associate human-readable
   names with services.  The DNS is organized around a set of
   independently operated "root servers" run by organizations that
   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.  TLDs are
   maintained and determined by ICANN.  These namespaces encompass
   several classes of services.  The initial namespaces, including
   ".com" and ".net", provide common spaces for expression of ideas,



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   though their policies are enacted through US-based companies.  Other
   namespaces are delegated to specific nationalities and may impose
   limits designed to focus speech in those forums, to both (1) promote
   speech from that nationality and (2) comply with local limits on
   expression and social norms.  Finally, the system has recently been
   expanded with additional generic and sponsored namespaces -- for
   instance, ".travel" and ".ninja" -- that are operated by a range of
   organizations that 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 generic TLDs 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].

   As discussed in [RFC7626], DNS has significant privacy issues.  Most
   notable is 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 directory lookups and makes it harder to
   hijack a session.  This is important because interference with the
   operation of the DNS is currently 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; this 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.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.3.2.1.  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 include the "seizure" of wikileaks [BBC-wikileaks] and
   the names of illegally operating gambling operations by the United
   States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit.  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 [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 made by registrars.  While DNSSEC addresses the network
   distortion events described below, it does not tackle this problem.

   (Although we mention 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.)

5.2.3.2.2.  Distortion of Records

   The most common mechanism by which the DNS 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 (DPI), where all DNS protocol messages are
   inspected by the network and objectionable content is distorted, as
   can be observed in Chinese networks.

   A notable instance of distortion occurred in Greece [Ververis], where
   a study found evidence of both (1) DPI to distort DNS replies and
   (2) more excessive blocking of content than was legally required or
   requested (also known as "overblocking").  Internet Service Providers
   (ISPs), obeying a governmental order, prevented clients from
   resolving the names of domains, thereby prompting this particular
   blocking of systems there.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 the 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 made possible by the predictable structure of DNS messages,
   which makes 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
   resolver.  The distorter can then try to block or hijack the
   connection to this resolver.  This may start an arms race, with the
   user switching to secured connections to this alternative resolver
   [RFC7858] and the distorter then trying to find more sophisticated
   ways to block or hijack the connection.  In some cases, this search
   for an alternative, non-disrupting resolver may lead to more
   centralization because many people are switching to a few big
   commercial public resolvers.

5.2.3.2.3.  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 that accomplishes a
   similar objective and 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 return a false response, causing the client to
   ignore the real response when it subsequently arrives
   [greatfirewall].  Unlike the other network paradigms discussed above,
   injection does not stifle the ability of a server to announce its
   name; it instead provides another voice that answers sooner.  This is
   effective because without DNSSEC, the protocol will respond to
   whichever answer is received first, without listening for subsequent
   answers.

5.2.3.3.  HTTP

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) version 1.1 [RFC7230]
   [RFC7231] [RFC7232] [RFC7233] [RFC7234] [RFC7235] [RFC7236] [RFC7237]
   is a request-response application protocol developed throughout the
   1990s.  HTTP factually contributed to the exponential growth of the



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Internet and the interconnection 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 in 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 by
   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 ISPs, 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 interception systems at large and to
   later launch active injection attacks, in order to swipe large
   amounts of data and compromise Internet-enabled devices.  The
   commercial availability of systems and tools to perform these types
   of attacks also led to a number of human rights abuses that have been
   discovered and reported over the years.

   Generally, we can identify traffic interception (Section 5.2.3.3.1)
   and traffic manipulation (Section 5.2.3.3.2) as the two most
   problematic attacks that can be performed against applications
   employing a cleartext HTTP transport layer.  That being said, the
   IETF is taking steady steps to move to the encrypted version of HTTP,
   HTTP Secure (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, to facilitate surveillance,
   certain countries will throttle HTTPS connections, forcing users to
   switch to (unthrottled) HTTP [Aryan-etal].

5.2.3.3.1.  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 a 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 phenomenon.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Email providers such as riseup.net were the first to enable SSL by
   default.  Google did not introduce an option for its Gmail users to
   navigate with SSL until 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
   before other mail service providers followed suit.  For example,
   Yahoo did not enable SSL/TLS by default on its webmail services until
   early 2014 [Peterson].

   TLS itself has been subject to many attacks and bugs; this situation
   can be attributed to some fundamental design weaknesses, such as lack
   of a state machine (which opens a vulnerability for triple handshake
   attacks) and flaws caused by early US government restrictions on
   cryptography, leading to cipher-suite downgrade attacks (Logjam
   attacks).  These vulnerabilities are being corrected in TLS 1.3
   [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 HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) [RFC6797], certificate
   pinning [RFC7469], and/or DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
   (DANE) [RFC6698] should be used.

   As we learned through 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 the Government Communications
   Headquarters's (GCHQ's) Tempora [WP-Tempora] and the National
   Security Agency's (NSA's) XKeyscore [Greenwald].  Through these
   programs, the NSA and the GCHQ have been able to swipe large amounts
   of data, including email and instant messaging communications that
   have been transported in the clear for years by providers
   unsuspecting of the pervasiveness and scale of governments' efforts
   and investment in global mass-surveillance capabilities.

   However, similar mass interception of unencrypted HTTP communications
   is also often employed at the national level by some democratic
   countries, by exercising control over state-owned ISPs 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 developing different types of interception
   gear, 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 a population, especially at times of social and political



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   distress, uncovering massive human rights abuses.  For example, in
   2013, the group Telecomix revealed that the Syrian regime was making
   use of Blue Coat products in order to intercept cleartext traffic as
   well as to enforce censorship of unwanted content [RSF].  Similarly,
   in 2011, it was found that the French technology firm Amesys provided
   the Gadhafi government with equipment able to intercept emails,
   Facebook traffic, and chat messages at a country-wide 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 regarding significant human rights abuses in Libya.

5.2.3.3.2.  Traffic Manipulation

   The lack of a secure transport layer under HTTP connections not only
   exposes 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;
   the node can observe, manipulate, and hijack the session and can
   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 to, and repackage binary software updates
   that are very commonly downloaded in the clear by applications such
   as word processors and media players.  If the HTTP session were
   encrypted, the tampering of the content would not be possible, and
   these network injection attacks would not be successful.

   While traffic manipulation attacks have long been known, documented,
   and prototyped, especially in the context of Wi-Fi and LAN networks,
   in the last few years we have observed an increasing investment in
   the production and sale of network injection equipment that is both
   commercially available and 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 interest and
   subsequently task man-on-the-side attacks to ultimately compromise a
   selected device.  Among other attacks, the 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 the NSA instead of the intended
   website.  Normally, the new destination would be an exploitation



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   service, referred to in Snowden documents as "FOXACID", which would
   attempt to execute malicious code in the context of the target's
   browser.  The Guardian reported in 2013 that the NSA has, for
   example, been using these techniques to target users of the popular
   anonymity service Tor [Schneier].  The German Norddeutscher Rundfunk
   (NDR) reported in 2014 that the NSA has also been using its
   mass-surveillance capabilities to identify Tor users at large
   [Appelbaum].

   Recently, similar capabilities used by 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 increasingly
   tighter control of Chinese Internet communications and access to
   information.

   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
   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
   vehicles.

   There is a new version of HTTP, called "HTTP/2" [RFC7540], which aims
   to be largely backwards compatible while also offering new options
   such as data compression of HTTP headers, pipelining of requests, 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-bandwidth
   environments, which in turn enables freedom of expression; the right
   to assembly; the right to political participation; and the right to
   participate in cultural life, arts, and science.  [RFC7540] does not
   mandate TLS or any other form of encryption, nor does it support
   opportunistic encryption even though opportunistic encryption is now
   addressed in [RFC8164].






Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.3.4.  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 that acts on 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; it is also
   designed to avoid central entities that could control the ability to
   communicate or assemble using the protocol.

   Nonetheless, there are plenty of aspects of the protocol design of
   XMPP that shape the ability for users to communicate freely and to
   assemble via the protocol.

5.2.3.4.1.  User Identification

   The XMPP specification [RFC6120] dictates that clients are identified
   with a resource (<node@domain/home> / <node@domain/work>) 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 the presence of
   not just 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 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.

5.2.3.4.2.  Surveillance of Communication

   XMPP specifies the standard by which communications channels may be
   encrypted, but it does not provide visibility to clients regarding
   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 that disrupts
   communications based on keywords found through DPI.  While many
   operators have committed to only establishing encrypted links from



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 [XMPP-Manifesto].

   In particular, Section 13.14 of the XMPP 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 where selective messages can then be disrupted.

5.2.3.4.3.  Group Chat Limitations

   Group chat in XMPP is defined as an extension within the XML
   specification of XMPP (https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html).
   However, it is not encoded or required at a protocol level and is not
   uniformly implemented by clients.

   The design of multi-user chat in XMPP 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.

5.2.3.5.  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 (see [RFC7574],
   an IETF standard that discusses a P2P architecture called the
   "Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol" (PPSPP)).  A P2P network is a
   logical overlay that lives on top of the physical network and allows
   nodes (or "peers") participating in it to establish contact and
   exchange information directly with each other.  The implementation of
   a P2P network may vary 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.  Prime examples include Bitcoin and
   other proprietary multimedia applications.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   In a time of heavily centralized online services, P2P is regularly
   described as an alternative, more democratic, and resistant option
   that displaces structures of control over data and communications and
   delegates all peers to be equally responsible for the functioning,
   integrity, and security of the data.  While in principle P2P remains
   important to the design and development of future content
   distribution, messaging, and publishing systems, it poses numerous
   security and privacy challenges that are mostly delegated to
   individual developers to recognize, analyze, and solve in each
   implementation of a given P2P network.

5.2.3.5.1.  Network Poisoning

   Since content, and sometimes peer lists, are safeguarded and
   distributed by their 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,
   (1) by intentionally corrupting the data, (2) at the index tables
   used to instruct the peers where to fetch the data, or (3) at routing
   tables, with an attempt to provide connecting peers with lists of
   rogue or nonexistent peers, with the intention to effectively cause a
   denial of service on the network.

5.2.3.5.2.  Throttling

   P2P traffic (and BitTorrent in particular) represents a significant
   percentage of global Internet traffic [Sandvine], and it has become
   increasingly popular for ISPs to perform throttling of customers'
   lines in order to limit bandwidth usage [torrentfreak1] and,
   sometimes, probably as an effect of the ongoing conflict between
   copyright holders and file-sharing communities [wikileaks].  Such
   throttling undermines the end-to-end principle.

   Throttling the P2P traffic makes some uses of P2P networks
   ineffective; this throttling might be coupled with stricter
   inspection of users' Internet traffic through DPI techniques,
   possibly posing additional security and privacy risks.

5.2.3.5.3.  Tracking and Identification

   One of the fundamental and most problematic issues with traditional
   P2P networks is a complete lack of anonymization of their users.  For
   example, in the case of BitTorrent, all peers' IP addresses are
   openly available to the other peers.  This has led to ever-increasing
   tracking of P2P and file-sharing users [ars].  As the geographical
   location of the user is directly exposed, as could also be his
   identity, the user might become a target of additional harassment and
   attacks of a physical or legal nature.  For example, it is known that



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   in Germany law firms have made extensive use of P2P 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 some varieties of P2P networks that
   implement cryptographic practices and that introduce anonymization of
   their users.  Such implementations may be proved to be successful in
   resisting censorship of content and tracking of network peers.  A
   prime example is Freenet [freenet1], a free software application that
   is (1) designed to make it significantly more difficult to identify
   users and content and (2) dedicated to fostering freedom of speech
   online [freenet2].

5.2.3.5.4.  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 that the P2P network makes collectively
   to 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) is 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" to
   benefit the attacker.  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 in reality there is none.  It is important to know 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.g.,
   astroturfing) are relevant to more than P2P protocols; they are also
   common on web-based systems, and they are exploited by governments
   and commercial entities.

   Encrypted P2P and anonymous P2P networks have already emerged.  They
   provide viable platforms for sharing material [Tribler], publishing
   content anonymously, and communicating 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.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.3.6.  Virtual Private Networks

   The VPNs discussed here are point-to-point connections that enable
   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 commonly used to (1) enable some devices to
   communicate through peculiar network configurations, (2) 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.  VPNs are often debated among human rights
   defenders as a potential alternative to Tor or other anonymous
   networks.  Such comparisons are misleading, as some of the privacy
   and security properties of VPNs are often misunderstood by less
   tech-savvy users and could ultimately lead to unintended problems.

   As VPNs have increased in popularity, commercial VPN providers have
   started growing as businesses 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, let alone the security of the
   application, assessing the general privacy and security state of
   common VPNs is very hard.  Such services have often been discovered
   to be leaking information, and their custom applications have been
   found to be flawed.  While Tor and similar networks receive a lot of
   scrutiny from the public and the academic community, commercial or
   non-commercial VPNs are far less analyzed and understood [Insinuator]
   [Alshalan-etal], 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.

5.2.3.6.1.  No Anonymity against VPN Providers

   One of the common misconceptions among users of VPNs is the level of
   anonymity that VPNs 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, VPNs were not designed to provide anonymity
   properties.  From a technical point of view, a VPN might leak
   identifiable information or might be the subject of correlation
   attacks that could expose the originating address of a connecting
   user.  Most importantly, it is vital to understand that commercial
   and non-commercial VPN providers are bound by the law of the
   jurisdiction in which they reside or in which their infrastructure is



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 a user's information could be provided to the user's
   adversary and lead to his or her identification.

5.2.3.6.2.  Logging

   Because VPNs are point-to-point connections, the service providers
   are in fact able to observe the original location of 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.  If the VPN providers retain logs for a long enough time,
   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-retention policy could be enforced, but considering that
   countries enforce different levels of data-retention policies, VPN
   providers should at least be transparent regarding what information
   they store and for how long it is being kept.

5.2.3.6.3.  Third-Party Hosting

   VPN providers very commonly rely on third 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 providers
   or on uplink providers.  In those cases, even if the VPN provider
   itself isn't retaining any significant logs, the information on
   connecting users might be retained by those third parties instead,
   introducing an additional collection point for the adversary.

5.2.3.6.4.  IPv6 Leakage

   Some studies proved that several commercial VPN providers and
   applications suffer from 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.










Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


5.2.3.6.5.  DNS Leakage

   Similarly, VPN services that aren't handling DNS requests and aren't
   running DNS servers of their own might be prone to DNS leaking that
   might not only expose sensitive information on the activity of a user
   but could also potentially lead to DNS hijacking attacks and
   subsequent compromises.

5.2.3.6.6.  Traffic Correlation

   Some VPN implementations appear to be particularly vulnerable to
   identification and collection of key exchanges that, 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 they could
   completely nullify the use of a VPN and ultimately expose the
   activity and the identity of a user at risk.

5.2.3.7.  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, typically
   because some content is only for identified users, based on a payment
   or on special status in the organization.  Most of the time, 403 is
   sent by the origin server, not by an intermediary.  If a firewall
   prevents a government employee from accessing pornography on a work
   computer, it does not use 403.












Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   As surveillance and censorship of the Internet are 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
   to both (1) these operators and (2) end users [RFC7725].

   The status code is named "451" in reference to both Bradbury's famous
   novel "Fahrenheit 451" and to 451 degrees Fahrenheit (the temperature
   at which some claim book paper autoignites).

   During the IETF 92 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."
   Still others argued that it would be useful for individuals or for
   organizations like the "Chilling Effects" project that are 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 IESG approved "An HTTP Status Code to
   Report Legal Obstacles" (now [RFC7725]) for publication.  HTTP status
   code 451 is now an IETF-approved HTTP status code that signals 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 technology.

   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 at 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
   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, etc.  Large




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 impacts human rights by making censorship more
   transparent and measurable.  It increases transparency by signaling
   the existence of censorship (instead of a much broader HTTP error
   message such as HTTP status code 404) as well as providing details of
   the legal restriction, which legal authority is imposing it, and to
   what class of resources it applies.  This empowers the user to seek
   redress.

5.2.3.8.  DDoS Attacks

   Many individuals, including IETF engineers, have argued that DDoS
   attacks are fundamentally against freedom of expression.
   Technically, DDoS attacks are attacks where one host or multiple
   hosts 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:

   1.  volume-based attacks (which aim to make the host unreachable by
       using up all its bandwidth; often-used techniques are UDP floods
       and ICMP floods)

   2.  protocol attacks (which aim to use up actual server resources;
       often-used techniques are SYN floods, fragmented packet attacks,
       and "ping of death" [RFC4949])

   3.  application-layer attacks (which aim to bring down a server, such
       as a web server)

   DDoS attacks can thus stifle freedom of expression and 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
   solely involved willing participants.  In the overwhelming majority
   of cases, the clients are hacked hosts of unrelated parties that



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   have not consented to being part of a DDoS (for exceptions, see
   Operation Ababil [Ababil] or the Iranian Green Movement's DDoS
   campaign at election time [GreenMovement]).  In addition,
   DDoS attacks are increasingly used as an extortion tactic.

   All of these issues seem to suggest that the IETF should try to
   ensure that their protocols cannot be used for DDoS attacks; this is
   consistent with the long-standing IETF consensus that DDoS is an
   attack that protocols should mitigate to the extent they can [BCP72].
   Decreasing the number of vulnerabilities in protocols and (outside of
   the 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 to
   create protocols that 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
   exercise 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 that engineers should
   ask themselves when developing or improving protocols if they want to
   understand their impact on human rights.  It should, however, be
   noted that the impact of a protocol cannot be solely deduced from its
   design; its usage and implementation should also be studied to form a
   full assessment of the impact of the protocol on human rights.

   The questions are based on the research performed by the HRPC
   Research Group.  This research was documented prior to the writing of
   these considerations.  The research establishes that human rights
   relate to standards and protocols; it also offers a common vocabulary
   of technical concepts that impact human rights and how these
   technical concepts can be combined to ensure that the Internet
   remains an enabling environment for human rights.  With this, 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 either harm or enable the right to
   freedom of expression; the right to non-discrimination; the right to
   equal protection; the right to participate in cultural life, arts,
   and science; the 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 malpractice on the part of a government or other



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   authority.  A person whose communications are monitored may be
   prevented from exercising their right to freedom of association or
   participation 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, based on
   information gathered by state agencies through information leakage in
   protocols, individuals perceived as threats to the state are
   subjected to torture, extrajudicial killings, or detention.

   This section details several "common" threats to human rights,
   indicating how each of these can lead to harm to, or violations of,
   human rights.  It also presents 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 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 their security
   considerations [BCP72], but privacy guidelines [RFC6973] or reviews,
   let alone the assessments of the impact of protocols on human rights,
   are not standardized or implemented.

   Many threats, enablers, and risks are linked to different rights.
   This is not surprising 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 to protocols and standards in
   particular [Bless1]:

      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),




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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].

   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 of this document.

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; rather, they
   contribute to them and look at the design process from a human rights
   perspective.

   Protocols and Internet Standards might benefit from a documented
   discussion of potential human rights risks arising from potential
   misapplications of the protocol or technology described in the RFC in
   question.  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.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


6.2.1.  Connectivity

   Questions:

   -  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?

   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
      "services" other 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, 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 real.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

6.2.2.  Privacy

   Questions:

   -  Did you have a look at the guidelines in Section 7 of [RFC6973]
      ("Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols")?

   -  Could your protocol in any way impact the confidentiality of
      protocol metadata?




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   -  Could your protocol counter traffic analysis?

   -  Could your protocol improve data minimization?

   -  Does your document identify potentially sensitive data logged by
      your protocol and/or for how long that data needs to be retained
      for technical reasons?

   Explanation:  "Privacy" refers to the right of an entity (normally a
      person), acting on 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].

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

6.2.3.  Content Agnosticism

   Questions:

   -  If your protocol impacts packet handling, does it use user data
      (packet data that is not included in the header)?

   -  Does your protocol make 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
      exceptions when it comes to effective traffic handling -- for
      instance, delay-tolerant or delay-sensitive packets based on the
      header.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   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 based on 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.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to equal protection

6.2.4.  Security

   Questions:

   -  Did you have a look at [BCP72] ("Guidelines for Writing RFC Text
      on Security Considerations")?

   -  Have you found any attacks that are somewhat related to your
      protocol yet considered out of scope for your document?

   -  Would these attacks be pertinent to the features of the Internet
      that enable human rights (as described throughout this document)?

   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].

   Example:  See [BCP72].











Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to security

6.2.5.  Internationalization

   Questions:

   -  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 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 Section 6.2.12 ("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 the W3C [W3Ci18nDef]: "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 they leave the question of what coded character set
      (CCS) and encoding are used 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 scripts in use in
      the world.  In today's world, that is normally best accomplished
      by allowing Unicode encoded in UTF-8 only.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 46]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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, such as identifiers, are both content and protocol
      elements.)  If the Internet wants to be a global network of
      networks, the protocols should work with languages other than
      English and character sets other 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 Section 6.2.12 ("Localization").

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science

6.2.6.  Censorship Resistance

   Questions:

   -  Does this protocol introduce new identifiers or reuse existing
      identifiers (e.g., Media Access Control (MAC) addresses) that
      might be associated with persons or content?

   -  Does your protocol make it apparent or transparent when access to
      a resource is restricted?

   -  Can your protocol contribute to filtering in such a way that it
      could be implemented to censor data or services?  If so, could
      your protocol be designed to ensure that this doesn't happen?

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

   Example:  When IPv6 was developed, embedding a MAC address into
      unique IP addresses was discussed.  This makes it possible, per
      [RFC4941], for "eavesdroppers and other information collectors to
      identify when different addresses used in different transactions
      actually correspond to the same node."  This is why privacy
      extensions for stateless address autoconfiguration in IPv6
      [RFC4941] have been introduced.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 47]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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, thereby allowing server operators to operate with
      greater transparency in circumstances where issues of law or
      public policy affect their operation [RFC7725].

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  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

   Questions:

   -  Is your protocol fully documented in such 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 you possibly do without it)?

   -  Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard from
      being fully implemented [RFC6701] [RFC8179]?

   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 the
      following: "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



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 48]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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
      Internet.

      Open standards are important, as they allow for permissionless
      innovation, which in turn is important for maintaining 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.

      All standards that need to be normatively implemented should be
      freely available and should provide reasonable protection against
      patent infringement claims, so that it can also be implemented in
      open-source or free software.  Patents have often held back open
      standardization or have been used against those deploying open
      standards, particularly in the domain of cryptography [Newegg].
      An exemption is sometimes made when a protocol that normatively
      relies on specifications produced by other SDOs that are not
      freely available is standardized.  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 include, but is not limited to, cryptographic
      primitives.

   Example:  [RFC6108] describes a system deployed by Comcast, an ISP,
      for providing critical end-user notifications to web browsers.
      Such a notification system is being used to provide
      almost-immediate notifications to customers, such as warning 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,
      [RFC6108] describes a system that does not rely upon DPI and is
      instead based on open IETF standards and open-source applications.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 49]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science

6.2.8.  Heterogeneity Support

   Questions:

   -  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 your protocol remain usable and open if the context changes?

   -  Does your protocol allow well-defined extension points?  If so, do
      these extension points allow for open innovation?

   Explanation:  [FIArch] notes the following: "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 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, as also noted in
      [FIArch], the heterogeneity principle proposed in [RFC1958] needs
      to be supported by design.

   Example:  Heterogeneity is inevitable and needs to be supported by
      design.  For example, multiple types of hardware must be allowed
      for transmission speeds differing by at least seven orders of
      magnitude, various computer word lengths, and hosts ranging from
      memory-starved microprocessors up to massively parallel
      supercomputers.  As noted in [RFC1958], "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."




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 50]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to political participation

6.2.9.  Anonymity

   Question:

   -  Did you have a look at [RFC6973] ("Privacy Considerations for
      Internet Protocols"), especially Section 6.1.1 of that document?

   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:  Protocols often expose personal data; it is therefore
      important to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts on
      privacy.  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 VPN) can help protect against third parties likely to
      eavesdrop packets exchanged between the tunnel endpoints.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to political participation

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to security

6.2.10.  Pseudonymity

   Questions:

   -  Have you considered [RFC6973] ("Privacy Considerations for
      Internet Protocols"), especially Section 6.1.2 of that document?

   -  Does the protocol collect personally derived data?



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 51]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   -  Does the protocol generate or process anything that can be, or
      that can 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 from their
      device or address?

   -  Does this protocol generate personally derived data?  If so, how
      will that data be handled?

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

   Example:  When designing a standard that exposes personal data, it is
      important to consider ways to mitigate the obvious impacts.  While
      pseudonyms cannot easily be reverse-engineered -- for example,
      some early approaches used such techniques as simple hashing of IP
      addresses that could in turn be easily 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 pseudonyms -- for
      instance, to hide their gender; protect themselves against
      harassment; protect their families' privacy; frankly discuss
      sexuality; or develop an artistic or journalistic persona without
      retribution from an employer, (potential) customers, or social
      surroundings [geekfeminism].  The difference between anonymity and
      pseudonymity is that a pseudonym is often 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]

   Impacts:

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 52]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


6.2.11.  Accessibility

   Questions:

   -  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
      [W3CAccessibility] 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 abilities
      [W3CAccessibility].  Sometimes, in the design of protocols,
      websites, web technologies, or web tools, barriers that exclude
      people from using the Web are created.

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

   Impacts:

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to education

   -  Right to political participation

6.2.12.  Localization

   Questions:

   -  Does your protocol uphold the standards of internationalization?

   -  Have you taken any concrete steps towards localizing your protocol
      for relevant audiences?

   Explanation:  Per [W3Ci18nDef], "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')."  It is also described as the practice of




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 53]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      translating an implementation to make it functional in a specific
      language or for users in a specific locale (see Section 6.2.5
      ("Internationalization")).

   Example:  The Internet is a global medium, but many of its protocols
      and products are developed with a certain audience in mind; this
      audience often shares 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 to use
      the Internet 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]; such a protocol would
      label the information content with an identifier for the language
      in which it is written and would allow information to be presented
      in more than one language.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to non-discrimination

   -  Right to participate in cultural life, arts, and science

   -  Right to freedom of expression

6.2.13.  Decentralization

   Questions:

   -  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?

   -  Can your protocol be used to negatively implicate users (e.g.,
      incrimination, accusation)?

   -  Does your protocol create additional centralized points of
      control?

   Explanation:  Decentralization is one of the central technical
      concepts of the architecture of networks and is 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



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 54]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      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 1990s, there has
      been a slow trend toward moving away from decentralization, to the
      detriment of any technical benefits that having a decentralized
      Internet otherwise provides.

   Example:  The bits traveling the Internet are increasingly
      susceptible to monitoring and censorship, from both governments
      and ISPs, as well as third (malicious) parties.  The ability to
      monitor and censor is further enabled by increased centralization
      of the network, creating central infrastructure points that can be
      tapped into.  The creation of P2P networks and the development of
      voice-over-IP protocols using P2P technology in combination with a
      distributed hash table (DHT) for scalability are examples of how
      protocols can preserve decentralization [Pouwelse].

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

6.2.14.  Reliability

   Questions:

   -  Is your protocol fault tolerant?

   -  Does your protocol 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, be error resistant as described, and
      function without unexpected results.  A system that is reliable
      degenerates gracefully and will have a documented way to announce
      degradation.  It also has mechanisms to recover from failure



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 55]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


      gracefully and, if applicable, to 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 ability is
      good, but from a security perspective, it can be very bad.  As
      with confidentiality, the growth of the Internet and fostering
      innovation in services depend on users having confidence and trust
      [RFC3724] in the network.  For reliability, it is necessary that
      services notify users if packet delivery fails.  In the case of
      real-time systems, the protocol needs to safeguard timeliness in
      addition to providing reliable delivery.

   Example:  In the modern IP stack structure, a reliable transport
      layer requires an indication that transport processing has
      successfully completed, such as the indication given by TCP's ACK
      message [RFC793] 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]).

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

6.2.15.  Confidentiality

   Questions:

   -  Does this protocol expose information related to identifiers or
      data?  If so, does it do so to each of the other protocol entities
      (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 protocol?




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 56]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   -  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 cleartext 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 a user's data
      secret from unintended listeners [BCP72].  The growth of the
      Internet depends on users having confidence that the network
      protects their personal data [RFC1984].

   Example:  Protocols that do not encrypt their payload make the entire
      content of the communication available to the idealized attacker
      along their path [RFC7624].  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 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].








Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 57]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Impacts:

   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to security

6.2.16.  Integrity

   Questions:

   -  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 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 that it has not
      been (intentionally or unintentionally) altered.

   Example:  Integrity verification of data is important for preventing
      vulnerabilities and attacks such as 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 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 that 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.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security










Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 58]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


6.2.17.  Authenticity

   Questions:

   -  Do you have sufficient measures in place to confirm the truth of
      an attribute of an entity or of a single piece of data?

   -  Can attributes get garbled along the way (see Section 6.2.4
      ("Security"))?

   -  If relevant, have you implemented IPsec, DNSSEC, HTTPS, and other
      standard security best practices?

   Explanation:  Authenticity ensures that data does indeed come from
      the source it claims to come from.  This is important for
      preventing (1) certain attacks or (2) unauthorized access to, and
      use of, data.

   Example:  Authentication of data is important for preventing
      vulnerabilities and attacks such as 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 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 cannot see that the data did not come from Alice but instead
      came 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 that the data did not come from Alice but instead came
      from Corinne.










Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 59]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   Impacts:

   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to security

6.2.18.  Adaptability

   Questions:

   -  Is your protocol written in such a way that it 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
      Section 6.2.1 ("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.  Permissionless
      innovation is at the heart of the Internet as we know it.  To
      maintain the Internet's fundamentally open nature and ensure that
      it can continue to develop, we need to be mindful of the impact of
      protocols on maintaining or reducing permissionless innovation.

   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 be
      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 standards need to be adaptable and allow for
      permissionless innovation.

   Impacts:

   -  Right to education

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 60]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


6.2.19.  Outcome Transparency

   Question:

   -  Are the effects of your protocol fully and easily comprehensible,
      including with respect to unintended consequences of protocol
      choices?

   Explanation:  Certain technical choices may have unintended
      consequences.

   Example:  Lack of authenticity may lead to lack of integrity and
      negative externalities; spam is an example.  Lack of data that
      could be used for billing and accounting can lead to so-called
      "free" arrangements that obscure the actual costs and distribution
      of the costs -- for example, (1) the barter arrangements that are
      commonly used for Internet interconnection and (2) 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:

   -  Right to freedom of expression

   -  Right to privacy

   -  Right to freedom of assembly and association

   -  Right to access to information

7.  Security Considerations

   As this document discusses research, there are no security
   considerations.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.












Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 61]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


9.  Research Group Information

   The discussion list for the IRTF Human Rights Protocol Considerations
   Research Group is located at the email address <hrpc@ietf.org>.
   Information on the group and information on how to subscribe to the
   list are provided at <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>.

   Archives of the list can be found at
   <https://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hrpc/current/index.html>.

10.  Informative References

   [Ababil]   Danchev, D., "Dissecting 'Operation Ababil' - an OSINT
              Analysis", September 2012, <http://ddanchev.blogspot.be/
              2012/09/dissecting-operation-ababil-osint.html>.

   [Abbate]   Abbate, J., "Inventing the Internet", MIT Press, 2000,
              <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet>.

   [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",
              Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer
              and Communications Security, pp. 5-17,
              DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813707, October 2015.

   [Alshalan-etal]
              Alshalan, A., Pisharody, S., and D. Huang, "A Survey of
              Mobile VPN Technologies", IEEE Communications Surveys &
              Tutorials, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 1177-1196,
              DOI 10.1109/COMST.2015.2496624, 2016,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
              document/7314859/?arnumber=7314859>.

   [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, pp. 75-86, DOI 10.1145/2740070.2626306,
              October 2014,
              <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2626306>.

   [Appelbaum]
              Appelbaum, J., Gibson, A., Goetz, J., Kabisch, V., Kampf,
              L., and L. Ryge, "NSA targets the privacy-conscious",
              2014, <http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/
              nsa230_page-1.html>.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 62]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [ars]      Anderson, N., "P2P researchers: use a blocklist or you
              will be tracked... 100% of the time", October 2007,
              <http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/
              p2p-researchers-use-a-blocklist-or-you-will-be-tracked-
              100-of-the-time/>.

   [Aryan-etal]
              Aryan, S., Aryan, H., and J. Alex Halderman, "Internet
              Censorship in Iran: A First Look", 2013,
              <https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/iran-foci13.pdf>.

   [Babbie]   Babbie, E., "The Basics of Social Research",
              Cengage, Belmont, CA, 2017.

   [BBC-wikileaks]
              BBC, "Whistle-blower site taken offline", February 2008,
              <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm>.

   [BCP72]    Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.

   [Benkler]  Benkler, Y., "The Wealth of Networks - How Social
              Production Transforms Markets and Freedom", Yale
              University Press, New Haven and London, 2006,
              <http://is.gd/rxUpTQ>.

   [Berners-Lee]
              Berners-Lee, T. and M. Fischetti, "Weaving the Web: The
              Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide
              Web", HarperCollins, p. 208, 1999.

   [BernersLeeHalpin]
              Berners-Lee, T. and H. Halpin, "Internet Access is a Human
              Right", 2012, <http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/homepage/
              publications/def-timbl-halpin.pdf>.

   [Bhargavan]
              Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti,
              A., and P. Strub, "Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters:
              Breaking and Fixing Authentication over TLS", 2014 IEEE
              Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 98-113,
              DOI 10.1109/SP.2014.14, May 2014.

   [Bitmessage]
              Bitmessage, "Bitmessage Wiki", March 2017,
              <https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page>.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 63]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [Bless1]   Orwat, C. and R. Bless, "Values and Networks - Steps
              Toward Exploring their Relationships", ACM SIGCOMM
              Computer Communication Review, Volume 46, Number 2,
              pp. 25-31, DOI 10.1145/2935634.2935640, April 2016,
              <http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/
              papers/2016/April/0000000-0000003.pdf>.

   [Bless2]   Bless, R. and C. Orwat, "Values and Networks", July 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/
              slides-93-hrpc-2.pdf>.

   [Broeders] Broeders, D., "The public core of the Internet.  An
              international agenda for Internet governance", The
              Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR)
              Report No. 94 (under "Reports to the government"), 2015,
              <https://english.wrr.nl/publications/reports/2015/10/01/
              the-public-core-of-the-internet>

   [Brown]    Ziewitz, M. and I. Brown, Ed., "A Prehistory of Internet
              Governance", Research Handbook on Governance of the
              Internet, Part 1, Chapter 1 (pp. 3-26), Edward Elgar
              Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, DOI 10.4337/9781849805049,
              2013.

   [Brown-etal]
              Brown, I., Clark, D., and D. Trossen, "Should Specific
              Values Be Embedded In The Internet Architecture?",
              ReARCH '10, Proceedings of the Re-Architecting the
              Internet Workshop, Article No. 10,
              DOI 10.1145/1921233.1921246, November 2010,
              <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2010/Workshops/
              REARCH/ReArch_papers/10-Brown.pdf>.

   [BrownMarsden]
              Brown, I. and C. Marsden, "Regulating Code: Good
              Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age",
              MIT Press, 2013,
              <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/regulating-code>.

   [CAIDA]    Dainotti, A., Squarcella, C., Aben, E., Claffy, K.,
              Chiesa, M., Russo, M., and A. Pescape, "Analysis of
              Country-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship",
              DOI 10.1109/TNET.2013.2291244, December 2013,
              <http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2014/
              outages_censorship/outages_censorship.pdf>.






Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 64]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [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?",
              August 2015, <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
              hrpc/current/pdf36GrmRM84S.pdf>.

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

   [Clark]    Clark, D., "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
              Protocols", SIGCOMM '88, Proceedings of the ACM CCR,
              Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 106-114, DOI 10.1145/52324.52336,
              August 1988.

   [Clark-etal]
              Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R. Braden,
              "Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's Internet",
              IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) archive,
              Volume 13, Issue 3, pp. 462-475,
              DOI 10.1109/TNET.2005.850224, June 2005,
              <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074049>.

   [CoE]      Council of Europe, "Applications to ICANN for Community-
              based New Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs): Opportunities
              and challenges from a human rights perspective", 2016,
              <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/
              DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14>.

   [Collins]  Collins, K., "Hacking Team's oppressive regimes customer
              list revealed in hack", July 2015,
              <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/06/
              hacking-team-spyware-company-hacked>.

   [Davidson-etal]
              Davidson, A., Morris, J., and R. Courtney, "Strangers in a
              Strange Land: Public Interest Advocacy and Internet
              Standards", Telecommunications Policy Research
              Conference, Alexandria, VA, September 2002,
              <https://www.cdt.org/files/publications/piais.pdf>.

   [DeNardis14]
              DeNardis, L., "The Global War for Internet Governance",
              Yale University Press, 2014,
              <https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkz4n>.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 65]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [DeNardis15]
              DeNardis, L., "The Internet Design Tension between
              Surveillance and Security", IEEE Annals of the History of
              Computing, Volume 37, Issue 2, DOI 10.1109/MAHC.2015.29,
              2015, <http://is.gd/7GAnFy>.

   [Denzin]   Denzin, N., Ed., and Y. Lincoln, Ed., "The SAGE Handbook
              of Qualitative Research", SAGE Handbooks, Thousand Oaks,
              CA, 2011, <http://www.amazon.com/
              SAGE-Handbook-Qualitative-Research-Handbooks/
              dp/1412974178>.

   [dict]     BusinessDictionary.com, "Reliability (dictionary entry)",
              WebFinance, Inc., 2017,
              <http://www.businessdictionary.com/
              definition/reliability.html>.

   [Doty]     Doty, N., "Automated text analysis of Requests for Comment
              (RFCs)", 2014, <https://github.com/npdoty/rfc-analysis>.

   [Douceur]  Douceur, J., "The Sybil Attack", 2002,
              <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/
              uploads/2002/01/IPTPS2002.pdf>.

   [Dutton]   Dutton, W., Dopatka, A., Law, G., and V. Nash, "Freedom of
              Connection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and
              Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet", 2011,
              <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-
              information/resources/publications-and-communication-
              materials/publications/full-list/freedom-of-connection-
              freedom-of-expression-the-changing-legal-and-regulatory-
              ecology-shaping-the-internet/>.

   [Farrow]   Farrow, R., "Source Address Spoofing", 2016,
              <https://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc723706.aspx>.

   [FIArch]   "Future Internet Design Principles", January 2012,
              <http://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/
              FIArch_Design_Principles_V1.0.pdf>.

   [FOC]      Ministers of the Freedom Online Coalition, "The Tallinn
              Agenda - Recommendations for Freedom Online", 2014,
              <https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/
              uploads/2014/04/FOC-recommendations-consensus.pdf>.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 66]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [FRAMEWORK]
              ISO/IEC, "Information technology - Framework for
              internationalization", prepared by ISO/IEC
              JTC 1/SC 22/WG 20 ISO/IEC TR 11017, 1998.

   [Franklin] Franklin, U., "The Real World of Technology", June 1999,
              <http://houseofanansi.com/products/
              the-real-world-of-technology-digital>.

   [freenet1] Freenet, "What is Freenet?", n.d.,
              <https://freenetproject.org/whatis.html>.

   [freenet2] Clarke, I., "The Philosophy behind Freenet", n.d.,
              <https://freenetproject.org/pages/about.html>.

   [geekfeminism]
              Geek Feminism Wiki, "Pseudonymity", 2015,
              <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudonymity>.

   [Geertz]   Geertz, H. and C. Geertz, "Kinship in Bali", University of
              Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975,
              <http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/
              bo25832222.html>.

   [Googlepatent]
              Google, "Method and device for network traffic
              manipulation", 2012,
              <https://www.google.com/patents/EP2601774A1?cl=en>.

   [greatfirewall]
              Anonymous, "Towards a Comprehensive Picture of the Great
              Firewall's DNS Censorship", 4th USENIX Workshop on Free
              and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '14,
              August 2014, <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/
              conference/foci14/foci14-anonymous.pdf>.

   [GreenMovement]
              Villeneuve, N., "Iran DDoS", 2009,
              <https://www.nartv.org/2009/06/16/iran-ddos/>.

   [Greenwald]
              Greenwald, G., "XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly
              everything a user does on the internet'", July 2013,
              <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/
              nsa-top-secret-program-online-data>.






Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 67]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [Haagsma]  Haagsma, L., "Deep dive into QUANTUM INSERT", April 2015,
              <http://blog.fox-it.com/2015/04/20/
              deep-dive-into-quantum-insert/>.

   [Hall]     Hall, J., Aaron, M., Jones, B., and N. Feamster, "A Survey
              of Worldwide Censorship Techniques", Work in Progress,
              draft-hall-censorship-tech-04, July 2016.

   [Hill2014] Hill, R., "Partial Catalog of Human Rights Related to ICT
              Activities", May 2014,
              <http://www.apig.ch/UNIGE%20Catalog.pdf>.

   [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, pp. 1441-1454, DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813628,
              October 2015,
              <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2813628>.

   [HTML5]    Hickson, I., Ed., Berjon, R., Ed., Faulkner, S., Ed.,
              Leithead, T., Ed., Navara, E., Ed., O'Connor, E., Ed., and
              S. Pfeiffer, Ed., "HTML5", W3C Recommendation,
              October 2014, <https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>.

   [ICCPR]    United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Civil and Political Rights", 1966,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
              CCPR.aspx>.

   [ICESCR]   United Nations General Assembly, "International Covenant
              on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights", 1966,
              <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
              CESCR.aspx>.

   [Insinuator]
              Schiess, N., "Vulnerabilities & attack vectors of VPNs
              (Pt 1)", August 2013, <https://www.insinuator.net/2013/08/
              vulnerabilities-attack-vectors-of-vpns-pt-1/>.

   [IRP]      Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition,
              "10 Internet Rights & Principles", 2017,
              <http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/>.

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





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 68]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [Kaye]     Kaye, D., "Freedom of expression and the private sector in
              the digital age", 2016, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/
              FreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx>.

   [King]     King, C., "Power, Social Violence and Civil Wars",
              Chapter 8 of "Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict
              Management in a Divided World", United States Institute of
              Peace Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.

   [Lessig]   Lessig, L., "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,
              Version 2.0 ('Codev2')", Basic Books, New York, 2006,
              <http://codev2.cc/>.

   [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 Cannon", April 2015,
              <https://citizenlab.org/2015/04/chinas-great-cannon/>.

   [Marquis-Boire]
              Marquis-Boire, M., "Schrodinger's Cat Video and the Death
              of Clear-Text", August 2014, <https://citizenlab.org/
              2014/08/cat-video-and-the-death-of-clear-text/>.

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

   [Mueller]  Mueller, M., "Networks and States: The Global Politics of
              Internet Governance", MIT Press,
              DOI 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014595.001.0001, 2010,
              <https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/networks-and-states>.

   [Musiani]  Musiani, F., "Giants, Dwarfs and Decentralized
              Alternatives to Internet-based Services: An Issue of
              Internet Governance", Westminster Papers in Communication
              and Culture, 10(1), pp. 81-94, DOI 10.16997/wpcc.214,
              2015, <https://www.westminsterpapers.org/
              articles/10.16997/wpcc.214/>.

   [Namecoin] Namecoin, "Namecoin", 2015, <https://namecoin.info/>.










Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 69]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [NATusage] Maier, G., Schneider, F., and A. Feldmann, "NAT usage in
              Residential Broadband networks", PAM: International
              Conference on Passive and Active Network
              Measurement Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
              Volume 6579, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg,
              DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19260-9_4, 2011,
              <http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/
              NATusage11.pdf>.

   [NETmundial]
              NETmundial, "NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement",
              April 2014, <http://netmundial.br/wp-content/
              uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf>.

   [Newegg]   Mullin, J., "Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites
              the history of encryption", November 2013,
              <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-
              trial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-
              encryption/>.

   [notewell] IETF, "Note Well", 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html>.

   [patentpolicy]
              Weitzner, D., Ed., "W3C Patent Policy", World Wide
              Web Consortium, February 2004,
              <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/>.

   [Penney]   Penney, J., "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and
              Wikipedia Use", 2016, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
              papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645>.

   [Peterson] Peterson, A., Gellman, B., and A. Soltani, "Yahoo to make
              SSL encryption the default for Webmail users.  Finally.",
              October 2013, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/
              news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/14/
              yahoo-to-make-ssl-encryption-the-default-
              for-webmail-users-finally/?utm_term=.a17eca45ddfe>.

   [PETS2015VPN]
              Perta, V., Barbera, M., Tyson, G., Haddadi, H., and A.
              Mei, "A Glance through the VPN Looking Glass: IPv6 Leakage
              and DNS Hijacking in Commercial VPN clients",
              DOI 10.1515/popets-2015-0006, 2015,
              <http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~hamed/papers/
              PETS2015VPN.pdf>.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 70]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [Pidgin]   js and Pidgin Developers, "[XMPP] Invisible mode violating
              standard", 2007,
              <https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4322>.

   [Pouwelse] Pouwelse, J., Ed., "Media without censorship (CensorFree)
              scenarios", Work in Progress, draft-pouwelse-censorfree-
              scenarios-02, October 2012.

   [Rachovitsa]
              Rachovitsa, A., "Engineering and lawyering privacy by
              design: understanding online privacy both as a technical
              and an international human rights issue", International
              Journal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 24,
              Issue 4, pp. 374-399, DOI 10.1093/ijlit/eaw012,
              December 2016, <https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/
              article/24/4/374/2566975/
              Engineering-and-lawyering-privacy-by-design>.

   [RFC760]   Postel, J., "DoD standard Internet Protocol", RFC 760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0760, January 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc760>.

   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC793]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC894]   Hornig, C., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
              Datagrams over Ethernet Networks", STD 41, RFC 894,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0894, April 1984,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc894>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 71]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [RFC1984]  IAB and IESG, "IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic
              Technology and the Internet", BCP 200, RFC 1984,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1984, August 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1984>.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
              Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026,
              October 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
              January 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.

   [RFC2775]  Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775>.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.

   [RFC3365]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61,
              RFC 3365, DOI 10.17487/RFC3365, August 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3365>.

   [RFC3439]  Bush, R. and D. Meyer, "Some Internet Architectural
              Guidelines and Philosophy", RFC 3439,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3439, December 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3439>.

   [RFC3536]  Hoffman, P., "Terminology Used in Internationalization in
              the IETF", RFC 3536, DOI 10.17487/RFC3536, May 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3536>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724>.

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.






Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 72]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC4084]  Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
              Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, DOI 10.17487/RFC4084,
              May 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4084>.

   [RFC4101]  Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4101, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4101>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
              Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.

   [RFC5694]  Camarillo, G., Ed., and IAB, "Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
              Architecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and
              Applicability", RFC 5694, DOI 10.17487/RFC5694,
              November 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5694>.

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 73]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6101>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6108>.

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
              March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.

   [RFC6701]  Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
              Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701>.

   [RFC6797]  Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
              Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.







Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 74]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
              RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests",
              RFC 7232, DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.

   [RFC7233]  Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
              "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
              RFC 7233, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233>.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.

   [RFC7235]  Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.

   [RFC7236]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Authentication Scheme Registrations", RFC 7236,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7236, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7236>.

   [RFC7237]  Reschke, J., "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
              Method Registrations", RFC 7237, DOI 10.17487/RFC7237,
              June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7237>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258,
              May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [RFC7469]  Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469,
              April 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.





Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 75]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [RFC7574]  Bakker, A., Petrocco, R., and V. Grishchenko, "Peer-to-
              Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)", RFC 7574,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7574, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7574>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.

   [RFC7626]  Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Privacy Considerations", RFC 7626,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7626>.

   [RFC7725]  Bray, T., "An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles",
              RFC 7725, DOI 10.17487/RFC7725, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7725>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC8164]  Nottingham, M. and M. Thomson, "Opportunistic Security for
              HTTP/2", RFC 8164, DOI 10.17487/RFC8164, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8164>.

   [RFC8179]  Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Intellectual Property
              Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 8179,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8179, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [Rideout]  Rideout, A., "Making security easier", July 2008,
              <http://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2008/07/
              making-security-easier.html>.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 76]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [Ritchie]  Ritchie, J. and J. Lewis, "Qualitative Research Practice:
              A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers", SAGE
              Publishing, London, 2003, <http://www.amazon.co.uk/
              Qualitative-Research-Practice-Students-Researchers/
              dp/0761971106>.

   [RSF]      Reporters Without Borders (RSF), "Syria using 34 Blue Coat
              servers to spy on Internet users", January 2016,
              <https://rsf.org/en/news/
              syria-using-34-blue-coat-servers-spy-internet-users>.

   [Saltzer]  Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, "End-to-End Arguments
              in System Design", ACM Transactions on Computer Systems
              (TOCS), Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 277-288,
              DOI 10.1145/357401.357402, November 1984.

   [Sandvine] Sandvine, "Sandvine: Over 70% Of North American Traffic Is
              Now Streaming Video And Audio", December 2015,
              <https://www.sandvine.com/pr/2015/12/7/sandvine-over-70-
              of-north-american-traffic-is-now-streaming-video-and-
              audio.html>.

   [Schillace] Schillace, S., "Default https access for Gmail",
              January 2010, <http://gmailblog.blogspot.de/2010/01/
              default-https-access-for-gmail.html>.

   [Schneier] Schneier, B., "Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users'
              online anonymity", October 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/
              tor-attacks-nsa-users-online-anonymity>.

   [SPIEGEL]  SPIEGEL, "Prying Eyes - Inside the NSA's War on Internet
              Security", December 2014,
              <http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/
              inside-the-nsa-s-war-on-internet-security-a-1010361.html>.

   [sslstrip] Marlinspike, M., "Software >> sslstrip", 2011,
              <https://moxie.org/software/sslstrip/>.

   [techyum]  Violet, "Official - vb.ly Link Shortener Seized by Libyan
              Government", October 2010, <http://techyum.com/2010/10/
              official-vb-ly-link-shortener-seized-by-libyan-
              government/>.

   [TorProject]
              The Tor Project, "Anonymity Online", 2006,
              <https://www.torproject.org/>.




Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 77]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [torrentfreak1]
              Van der Sar, E., "Is Your ISP Messing With BitTorrent
              Traffic?  Find Out", January 2014,
              <https://torrentfreak.com/is-your-isp-messing-with-
              bittorrent-traffic-find-out-140123/>.

   [torrentfreak2]
              Andy, "Lawyers Sent 109,000 Piracy Threats in Germany
              During 2013", March 2014, <https://torrentfreak.com/
              lawyers-sent-109000-piracy-threats-in-germany-during-
              2013-140304/>.

   [Tribler]  Delft University of Technology, Department EWI/PDS/
              Tribler, "About Tribler", 2013,
              <https://www.tribler.org/about.html>.

   [UDHR]     United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
              Declaration of Human Rights", 1948, <http://www.un.org/en/
              universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html>.

   [UNGA2013] United Nations General Assembly, "UN General Assembly
              Resolution "The right to privacy in the digital age"
              (A/C.3/68/L.45)", 2013,
              <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N13/
              576/77/PDF/N1357677.pdf?OpenElement>.

   [UNHRC2016]
              United Nations Human Rights Council, "The promotion,
              protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet",
              Resolution A/HRC/32/L.20, 2016,
              <http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=20340>.

   [Ververis] Ververis, V., Kargiotakis, G., Filasto, A., Fabian, B.,
              and A. Alexandros, "Understanding Internet Censorship
              Policy: The Case of Greece", 5th USENIX Workshop on Free
              and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI) '15,
              August 2015, <https://www.usenix.org/system/files/
              conference/foci15/foci15-paper-ververis-update.pdf>.

   [W3CAccessibility]
              World Wide Web Consortium, "Accessibility", 2016,
              <https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility>.

   [W3Ci18nDef]
              Ishida, R. and S. Miller, "Localization vs.
              Internationalization", World Wide Web Consortium,
              April 2015, <http://www.w3.org/International/
              questions/qa-i18n.en>.



Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 78]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


   [wikileaks]
              Sladek, T. and E. Broese, "Market Survey: Detection &
              Filtering Solutions to Identify File Transfer of Copyright
              Protected Content for Warner Bros. and movielabs", 2011,
              <https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/Anti-Piracy/CDSA/
              EANTC-Survey-1.5-unsecured.pdf>.

   [WP-Tempora]
              Wikipedia, "Tempora", September 2017,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora>.

   [WSJ]      Sonne, P. and M. Coker, "Firms Aided Libyan Spies", The
              Wall Street Journal, August 2011,
              <http://www.wsj.com/articles/
              SB10001424053111904199404576538721260166388>.

   [WynsbergheMoura]
              Nguyen, B., Ed., van Wynsberghe, A., van Wynsberghe, A.,
              and G. Moreira Moura, "The concept of embedded values and
              the example of internet security", June 2013,
              <http://doc.utwente.nl/87095/>.

   [XMPP-Manifesto]
              Saint-Andre, P. and XMPP Operators, "A Public Statement
              Regarding Ubiquitous Encryption on the XMPP Network",
              March 2014, <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/
              stpeter/manifesto/master/manifesto.txt>.

   [Zittrain] Zittrain, J., "The Future of the Internet - And How to
              Stop It", Yale University Press & Penguin UK, 2008,
              <https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4455262/
              Zittrain_Future%20of%20the%20Internet.pdf?sequence=1>.



















Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 79]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


Acknowledgements

   A special thanks to all members of the HRPC Research Group who
   contributed to this document.  The following deserve a special
   mention:

   -  Joana Varon for helping draft the first iteration of the
      methodology and previous drafts, and for directing the film "Net
      of Rights" and working on the interviews at IETF 92 in Dallas.

   -  Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg) for helping with the first iteration of
      the glossary (Section 2) as well as a lot of technical guidance,
      support, and language suggestions.

   -  Claudio Guarnieri for writing the first iterations of the case
      studies on VPNs, HTTP, and P2P.

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

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

   Thanks also to 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 Bortzmeyer, Shane Kerr, Giovane Moura, James Gannon, Alissa
   Cooper, Andrew Sullivan, S. Moonesamy, Roland Bless, and Scott Craig
   for their reviews and for 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 this document or the conceptualization of the idea.  Thanks
   to Edward Snowden for his comments at IETF 93 in Prague regarding the
   impact of protocols on the rights of users.















Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 80]

RFC 8280          Human Rights Protocol Considerations      October 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Niels ten Oever
   ARTICLE 19

   Email: mail@nielstenoever.net


   Corinne Cath
   Oxford Internet Institute

   Email: corinnecath@gmail.com







































Ten Oever & Cath              Informational                    [Page 81]

