On 5/27/19 4:39 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> hkps is limited because Kristian doesn't hand out certs to anyone who
> shows up with a new keyserver and asks; he tends to do so with people
> who've been around and part of the community, because of the fairly
> obvious problems with assuming TLS is
Hi all,
sorry for stepping in as I am not working on this topic, but following the
GDPA story for longer time I never read that we could simply prompt and
agree with the terms of the authority hosting the information of the
public key. The date and signature and probably reference to a version of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 14:28 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> On 27/05/2019 12:47, deloptes wrote:
> > it is a matter of an agreement between the person and the authority
> > hosting the information of the public key
>
> This is the problem though:
On 27/05/2019 12:47, deloptes wrote:
> it is a matter of an agreement between the person and the authority
> hosting the information of the public key
This is the problem though: there is no single identifiable authority
(data controller in GDPR jargon) with whom to make such an agreement.
On 27/05/2019 14:47, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 14:28 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>> On 27/05/2019 12:47, deloptes wrote:
>>> it is a matter of an agreement between the person and the authority
>>> hosting the information of the public key
>
>> This is the problem though:
Hi,
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 19:35 +0200, ilf wrote:
> So far, I stand by last year's statement:
>
> > tl;dr: Keep calm and keep running keyservers.
>
Are you standing by your statement because you believe that processing
that data is lawful or because you don't fear the consequences of a
Tobias Mueller:
So far, I stand by last year's statement:
tl;dr: Keep calm and keep running keyservers.
Are you standing by your statement because you believe that processing
that data is lawful or because you don't fear the consequences of a
potentially unlawful processing of data?
I stand
