Re: [Sks-devel] Legalese for mismatched expectations

[Phil Pennock]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2013-08-31 at 02:57 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 20:46 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: 
> > Too many words, keep it KISS in plain speak.
> Agreed...

If I were smart enough to include the needed information in fewer words,
it would use fewer words.  Explicit suggestions appreciated, but "needs
to be shorter" is kind of obviously true.

> First, it's not our job to educate people with respect to
> cryptography/security in general...

It might not be our job, but in the jurisdiction I live in, there are
nasty concepts like "attractive nuisance", where you can be minding your
own business, avoiding putting up barriers, and when someone else gets
in trouble through their own mistakes, you get in trouble for having a
garden without secure fences.

That's just the most obvious analogy; in the USA, there are all sorts of
nasty ways that providing a public service to others can leave you
legally exposed to the consequences of someone's ignorance.

When experts say "surely nobody could blame us", judges say "it's your
fault".  Especially if the experts can be painted as remote robots and
it's an election season (since many judges are elected too).

So, I am absolutely going to have warning text, even if it's "not my
job" to take responsibility for the ignorance of others.

- -Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAlIheiQACgkQQDBDFTkDY3/DhwCfUQO3TkOjeDGZjWyic8k8KmvH
GRIAn2KHXiTAZzG+PghpwjOZxCJtwDac
=atH9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----