Subject: [hrpc] invited speaker

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:36:24 +0530

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your suggestions for speakers. I really
appreciate the suggestions for speakers and stakeholder groups to
invite. It reaffirms the usefulness of having speakers who are a bit
outside, or on the border of standards making to help us understand the
relationship between human rights, standards and infrastructure better.

Avri and I discussed and we thought that having one speaker slot would
match with our objective of working on issues in draft-irtf-hrpc-research

Thanks also Seda for the suggestion of Spideralex. I am very familiar
with her work and fully agree her perspectives would be beneficial for
our work. It would indeed be good to have someone who is not an academic
to speak. I've reached out to her, let's see if she is available.

@Joe - it might be interesting to see if the people from Greatfire would
be interested to do talk for us, we could also explore this for a future
session. Could you see if they would be interested?

@Elliot - do you have a specific government and/or department in mind?

Cheers,

Niels
-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:17 +0100

Hi Niels,

> @Elliot - do you have a specific government and/or department in mind?

Lara Ballard from the U.S. Department of State has written a good
historical perspective, but we also need someone from law enforcement. 
It seems to me that reaching out to Comey and his people would be a good
idea.  He asked for a dialog, after all.  The timing, of course, is such
that this would be more appropriate for a later date.

Eliot

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:25:28 -0400

> that this would be more appropriate for a later date.

I don't think this (US based law enforcement) would be useful at all.
They are going to be wrapped up in "going dark" and Rule 41 issues at
this time an unlikely to seriously engage with anything labeled "human
rights" let alone "engineering". (And yes, I'm applying this across
FBI personnel including Baker and the legal/policy folks as well as
Burrell and the more tech types.)

I can reach out to Greatfire... I have to apologize that it looks like
I'm going to be on a plane trying to get to Seoul during the HRPC
session. Apologies for that and I'm disappointed (I have a tight
travel window this IETF).

best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

Tech Prom, CDT's Annual Dinner, is April 20, 2017! https://cdt.org/annual-dinner

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:05:33 +0100

Joe,

What I find unhelpful is communities talking past one another.

> Burrell and the more tech types.)

And what would they say you are wrapped up in?  Isn't it better to seek
engagement and discussion rather than foreclose that possibility?  And
if they make decisions that you later find unpalatable, I expect you not
to complain.

BTW, the names I mentioned were examples.  There are other governments
in the world.  Getting a range of views in terms of LE requirements and
rights balancing would be useful.

Eliot

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:27:41 -0400

> What I find unhelpful is communities talking past one another.

Sure, and I think the record shows that my organization values
considered dialogue.

> if they make decisions that you later find unpalatable, I expect you not

I don't disagree with this, I just don't think an IRTF HRPC meeting is
going to be a good place for this kind of discussion.

(quick non-HRPC rant)

We've been engaged in these discussions in the US and EU and while
they have been in general productive, what I don't see is any movement
whatsoever by the associated leadership to depoliticize the discussion
(or to even recognize there are sources of potential evidence that
they should not and will not have access to, period.). In contrast,
organizations like my own have tried to engage on areas that we do see
as part of evolving reality to make sure it happens with due process
(&c) and that technical and legal capabilities are well-calibrated
(although the UK IPB is an utter lost cause). And we are moderates
here.

(ok, done)

> rights balancing would be useful.

Now *that's* a framing in which I would find this useful. I probably
don't have the right connections to get someone to Seoul like this,
and the timing of the HPRC session (effectively 19:30 ET 13-Nov) may
make it hard to grab people I do have connections to (US, EU, UK).

best, Joe