On 7/21/2010 1:41 PM, Peter DeVries wrote:
Todd, I just read the ruling on this and am confused as to why you
would think this applies to DNSSEC rather than DNS (or other
information systems).
Because I read the opinion and looked at what the idea of trustworthy
meant to the court. Something that is really really different than what
technical people think trustworthy meets.
The reason this case was unable to proceed and
the evidence was rejected seems to be because of the police handling
of the system and witness. The ruling specifically states that
video/evidence capture devices are still admissible (See section II
"analysis") as long as timeline and/or "reasonable representation of
what it is alleged to portray." is available.
So then the time-service and sequence of events would need to be
provable... I totally get that.
The problem is that the officer made available to the court had no
firsthand knowledge of the incident, no understanding of the system,
no knowledge of the time of information handling, and no internal
knowledge of the development / testing of the system
Yep...
Either this applies everywhere and DNSSEC is not unique or it applies
nowhere as the data path will be further confirmed by
administrator/operator knowledge.
Bingo - it applies everywhere. But the idea of DNSSEC being a solution
to the issue of evidence capture regarding any and all processes
Can you explain in more detail with specific references as to how this
applies to DNSSEC or IS systems as a whole. I fail to see your
concern.
It applies to everything that creates data which could come to be
reviewed by a court.
Also, operations is separate from prosecution. DNSSEC has
other purposes than prosecution and can most certainly be operated
within this ruling. I don't personally see issues with prosecution as
long as the witnesses understand and explain how the situation was
handled.
The problem is the integrity of the data model and whether it produces
BTW, the appeals case number I read is: 30-2009-00304893. Please let
me know if there is another case you are referencing.
No that's it.
Peter
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM, todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:
Folks - there is a Court Ruling from the 4th Appellate District which
is turning off Red Light Camera's everywhere and there is a question as
to whether that ruling would also effect how Secure DNS Services are run
and if so what would it do.
The ruling is called California v Khaled and is getting significant
traction here in the State of California in all courts.
Todd
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf