Re: [Sks-devel] 0xd5920e937cc1e39b shows signatures with 0xca57ad7c continuing?

[Robert J. Hansen]

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].