Who would you trust more that ESF? Why,specifically, would you trust another group of people to be more trustworthy? I admit to have a USA bias, but for the issue in question, I don't there being a much better choice. The UK has less freedoms in this matter. But then this is turning into a case of "I'm worried about things, here lets have you [The project] spend time and money to fix the problem?"
Unless, of course, you are willing to contribute time and money to fixing this issue. Otherwise this just an armchair general telling other people how to run the project. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Thinker Rix <thinke...@rocketmail.com>wrote: > On 2013-10-11 16:20, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > Probably would not work (or would get whoever did that thrown in jail). > This is similar to a Warrant Canary, but the USDoJ has indicated that > Warrant Canaries would probably be grounds for prosecution of violation of > the non-disclosure order. > > - Y > > On Friday, October 11, 2013, Adrian Zaugg wrote: > >> >> Dear all >> >> After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my >> mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon >> the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise the code >> was compromised on pressure of govermental authorities. It would be the >> sign for the users to review the code and maybe to fork an earlier >> version and host it in a free country, where the protection of personal >> data is a common sense and national security is not so much an issue. >> >> Regards, Adrian. >> > > > Hi Yehuda, > > inspired by the keyword you dropped, I researched a little bit and found: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary > It seems that you are correct: What Adrian suggests, is called a Warrant > canary. > In the wikipedia article it says that: "The intention is to allow the > provider to inform customers of the existence of a subpoena passively, > without violating any laws. The legality of this method has not been tested > in any court." Is that wrong or in conflict with what you wrote? > > In the case that it would indeed be prosecuted in the USA, we could > consider to host the project in another country. > In this case it would be interesting to investigate what needs to be > hosted elsewhere: The source code versioning control system? The company > behind pfSense (ESF)? > > I guess that the best solution would be to incorporate pfSense itself and > untie it from ESF. Many other free software projects have done so recently. > The most prominent example is Libre Office which is now "owned" by the > Document Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Foundation). > The "owned" refers to e.g. the brand name, since the software itself is > free software, it is not owned by anybody. > > So summarizing: > If pfSense would be incorporated as a foundation at some place (many > countries would be possible) outside the USA, it could be a solution to > this I guess. > > Regards > Thinker Rix > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
