Scott,
Thanks for thinking about this. In your caution, though, I believe you are
downplaying a real issue. In particular, here:
Recommendation #1, the section headings: Currently they are "It's an
Attack" and "And We Will Continue to Mitigate the Attack". Just those
headings are all the media needs for high entertainment value. They
are also all various organizations need as leverage to dismiss us as
extremists. :-) I suggest making the first section "Pervasive
Monitoring is Indistinguishable from an Attack". "It's an Attack" is a
great title for a slide presentation to an appreciative audience, but
it is only accurate at a high level and is immediately qualified in
the text anyway.
The reality is that it is not simply indistinguishable from an attack, it
represents actual harm to the use and users of the network. While we
often use the term "self censorship" when pervasive monitoring causes us to
limit our speech, the actual agency belongs with the monitors, not with
us. In some cases this limitation may be a side effect; in some cases it
is a desired outcome by the state actors taking this action. While
"attack" may come across as a loaded term, the impact and the threat are
real.
If the language does change, I could see value in saying "Pervasive
monitoring represents a threat" and "We will work to mitigate that threat";
that change could acknowledge that in some cases the impact is a
side-effect of the activity rather than the direct result of an attack.
But I would not be okay with a change that did not acknowledge that this
activity has an active harm, as "Pervasive monitoring is indistinguishable
from an attack" would do. That could channel our energies in ways which do
not actually address either the threat or the harm.
regards,
Ted Hardie
The heading for Section 2 is great as long as Section
1 is changed to be clearer.
Recommendation #2, where to put discussion of definitions: Statements
are made at the front of each section and then _after_ that, the
concepts used in those statements are developed. In Section 1,
"attack" is presented as a technical term after it is used in what
appears to be a non-technical way. I would move discussion of its
meaning up to the top of the section. The discussion of "pervasive
monitoring" can probably stay where it is -- let's see after the next
editing pass. In Section 2, the discussion of the meaning of
mitigation should be tightened up and moved to the top of the section.
It's not good to give general readers the soundbites they are going
to run with unless you make sure they understand what you're saying
first.
FYI I'm also the assigned gen-art reviewer for this draft, but I'll
put that off as long as possible until this all settles out. I expect
a new draft version soon :-).
Scott