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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf