Safe Expunging and 'legal' restrictions #1222
Labels
Comments
|
That's probably right. One thing I was thinking of doing is following the build tracks example and making it clear which requirements are on the Organization (build track calls it the producer) and which are on the SCS. I think that would resolve this? |
TomHennen
added a commit
to TomHennen/slsa
that referenced
this issue
Dec 3, 2024
The prior language made it sound like the SCS was responsible for only performing expunging for legal requests. That's not reasonable from a technical perspective. With this update we clarify that it's the _organization's_ responsibility to ensure this bar is met. fixes slsa-framework#1222 Signed-off-by: Tom Hennen <[email protected]>
TomHennen
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 4, 2024
…1252) The prior language made it sound like the SCS was responsible for only performing expunging for legal requests. That's not reasonable from a technical perspective. With this update we clarify that it's the _organization's_ responsibility to ensure this bar is met. I had thought about adding a whole section of requirements just for the organization, but that seems out of scope for this change and it would be a lot of work. We can still do so if we want, but not here. fixes #1222 Signed-off-by: Tom Hennen <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I'm also not sure the scs can be on the hook for enforcing that the data removals were for legal reasons.
Generally I think "the owner of the intellectual property in the repo (the root repo owner, in gh terms) can remove data. They should only do this for legal or privacy reasons due to the risk of severe reputational consequences (damage to artifact chain of custody)." Ie: it's indistinguishable from a repo hijack so you should have a good reason.
Originally posted by @zachariahcox in #1203 (review)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: