Subject: [Add] questions in parliament about DoH

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:08:22 +0100

The House of Lords has shown interest in DoH, most probably because of a recent article in the Sunday Times:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-05-14/debates/E84CBBAE-E005-46E0-B7E5-845882DB1ED8/InternetEncryption

I expect this won’t be the only time governments and legislators are going to ask questions. Fun times ahead - for some definition of fun.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 11:17:04 -0400 (EDT)

> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-05-14/debates/E84CBBAE-E005-46E0-B7E5-845882DB1ED8/InternetEncryption

That escalated quickly:

 	Does the Minister agree that there is a fundamental and very concerning
 	lack of accountability when obscure technical groups, peopled largely by
 	the employees of the big internet companies, take decisions that have
 	major public policy implications with enormous consequences for all of
 	us and the safety of our children?

Paul, adding "member of obscure technical group" to his LinkedIn profile.

---

From: Amelia Andersdotter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 20:54:20 +0200

> Paul, adding "member of obscure technical group" to his LinkedIn profile.
Well, immediately preceeding that: "This Question concerns the danger
posed to existing internet safety mechanisms by an encryption protocol
that, if implemented, would render useless the family filters in
millions of homes and the ability to track down illegal content by
organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation."

Child safety interest groups are relatively well-funded and well-known
for a large number of years. Observations relating to their agenda have
been raised in HRPC recently and, of course, in a number of other forums
over a large number of years.

While a lot of child safety initiatives have in recent years (most
notably the Swedish Royal Prince's Foundation at
https://www.natforaldrar.se/#english !) been moving stronger towards
building confidence in parents that they can be trustworthy supporters
of children when children encounter troubling situations online, the
momentum for ISP-oriented content control mechanisms is already in full
steam since the 1990s. It takes a while for recommendations to be
updated, even if better practises for parents are known nowadays.

Together with my colleague Collin (in CC) I've been trying to work out
whether it's possible to pre-empt increasing tensions around DoH and
child safety filtering. In particular, we're happy to collaborate with
interested IETF and RIPE people on this, so you can drop us an *offlist
message* if you feel like this is something you care about.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Best regards,

-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme
Chair, RCM TIG, IEEE 802.11

ARTICLE19
www.article19.org

PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 19:49:26 +0000

Hi

One point on this - is that a significant difference with DoH on child safety filters is that for users who have chosen for their own devices to turn on child safety filters, they will see them effectively turned off by a third party making the decision for them.    

That's where the legacy discussions don't entirely apply to this conversation as much of the issue has been around who is making the decision.  It's very much the question of who is choosing the filter be turned on,  and who is choosing to disable it, and in the current DoH plans that decision is being taken away from the user.

-glenn

On 5/16/19, 11:55 AM, "Add on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    Best regards,

    ARTICLE19
    www.article19.org

    -- 
    Add mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 05:48:18 +0000

>> https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-05-14/debates/E84CBBAE-E005-46E0-B7E5-845882DB1ED8/InternetEncryption 

Yes indeed.

> Paul, adding "member of obscure technical group" to his LinkedIn profile.

But then your excitement for a new addition to your profile got a bit 
damped:

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for discussing this with me 
beforehand, which was very welcome. I agree that there may be serious 
consequences from DoH. The DoH protocol has been defined by the Internet 
Engineering Task Force. Where I do not agree with the noble Baroness is 
that this is not an obscure organisation; it has been the dominant 
internet technical standards organisation for 30-plus years and has 
attendants from civil society, academia and the UK Government as well as 
the industry. The proceedings are available online and are not 
restricted. It is important to know that DoH has not been rolled out yet 
and the picture in it is complex—there are pros to DoH as well as cons. 
We will continue to be part of these discussions; indeed, there was a 
meeting last week, convened by the NCSC, with DCMS and industry 
stakeholders present.

So maybe you can add "member of dominant internet technical standards 
organization" to your profile, too?

Regards,    Martin.