Thank you Alun. I wonder if IWF is a “civil society” member. I welcome talking about IWF's own processes. They should be scrutinized as the organization frequently criticizes end-to-end encryption and blames it for issues with the protection of children online. However, it is their own processes and privacy intrusive technologies and blocklists that are to be blamed because they don’t work without jeopardizing encryption. Very frequently we see articles coming out of IWF criticizing end to end encryption and protocols like DoH which can be beneficial for protecting children’s rights. It was not enough to lobby the UK to come up with an awful law that jeopardizes the Internet, we now are talking about regulation at the Internet protocol level. And yes I call it that, because they fiercely lobby for it and frequently win. They talk about an "orthodoxy" going on at the IETF... the orthodoxy of methods among child online protection organizations that solely focuses on protecting children by taking down CSAM and leaving it at that brought us all here and put privacy which is a child's right in conflict with protecting them online. I look forward to commenting on their I-D in the future. On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 6:28 AM Alun Davies <adavies@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
In this new article on RIPE Labs, Dan Sexton (CTO at IWF) talks about his experience of taking part in IETF 116 to raise discussion around civil society issues regarding the safety of the Internet for children:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/dan-sexton/approaching-the-ietf-a-view-from-civ...
Best regards,
Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC --
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list