Policy-Discussion

[Peter Williams <home_pw AT msn.com>]

I may not be addressing the points, properly, having only partially read the thread.

> When it comes to a TLA request, the above process should 
> still protect for *covert* channels.
 
Once you are potentially worth subjecting to secret orders, you will be required a hire an suitably indoctrinated person who will handle the secret order in line with the law. Senior management will not know the information is being shared, having appropriately delegated all necessary authority to this individual, in return for what amounts of a legal indemnity. Records keeping obligations are controlled, and minimized.
 

> 
> For *overt* channels, court orders are delivered. These can 
> be interpreted as disputes, ruled on by arbitrator and then 
> implemented as per ruling. So the prosecutor would have to 
> get a court order to hand over the keys, in which case it 
> could be dealt with in court, until finally complied with.

This is not real. Challenging an order only ever happens when the order interferes with business. Day to day orders and other warrants rarely do so, tho. the internet is changing this dynamic somewhat allowing customers as a group to economically punish of a business that targets one of the collective's members, even if ordered. The counterswing to this internet change in the balance of power is the secret order.
 
 
> Then CA implements the procedures for compromise, etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> All of this might be good in theory, but implementation is 
> slow. Now that we've got a new board, we might see some 
> progress on approval of those key policies...
> 
> iang
> _______________________________________________
> Have you subscribed to our RSS News Feed yet?
> 
> CAcert-Policy mailing list
> CAcert-Policy AT lists.cacert.org
> http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cacert-policy

---

Download Messenger. Start an i’m conversation. Support a cause. Join Now!