On 6/4/12 4:27 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > But there are also reasons to add better policies like "Do Not > Modify" or "I live in the EU and privacy laws permit me to insist > that my pubkey be removed." to manage server-to-server distribution.
The problem here is that the keyserver network would quickly become the lowest common denominator among all these. The U.S.-based keyservers would need ways to remove infringing copyrighted material (DMCA takedown notices), the EU-based keyservers would need ways to remove to conform to privacy laws, and so on. Taken to the logical conclusion we'd be left with a keyserver network that was the set union of all the legal restrictions of all the countries in which participating keyservers operated -- and I think that would be a not-very-useful-at-all network. Better by far, I think, for the keyserver network to undergo a planned fracture: EU and US keyservers running in separate pools and periodically syncing up. > But arguing that the problem should not be considered because "… > several people have come out quite adamantly …" isn't exactly a > healthy discussion. When have I ever said the discussion shouldn't be had? I've only ever said that the keyservers have always been guided by a "no loss of information, ever" policy. And I've also outright said that we need a way to change this policy, because otherwise we're one [insert legal challenge] away from all of us having to shut down permanently or else fear criminal charges for [criminal offense or EU data privacy directive]. _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
