No. What they are telling you is that it's not a matter of who "deserves" Let's Encrypt certificates. You can get those even if you're a criminal, a human trafficker, a pedopornographer. It only matters that you can demonstrate control over your domain name.
Of course, the law will have something to say about your crimes, but that has nothing to do with your TLS certificates.
What also matters is that Let's Encrypt itself does not start kicking the hornet's nest of deciding who gets or not its certificates. Because it is a gigantic hornet's nest and nothing good will come out of it.
If you'd demonstrated some understanding of the role of a CA, or what a TLS cert indicates, I might be interested in your opinion on the subject. You haven't done so. Feel free to show me my error once you've done so.
It highly surprises that Let's Encrypt tolerates presence of such topic, which spread hate to a nation, goes against net neutrality, and promote discrimination.
Pain to see, frankly. I ask administration to reconsider existence of this and any similar topics.
People have asked about LE revoking certs for several reasons they feel are legitimate - spammers, phishers, and others. Some people are highly emotional about some instances which is understandable. Both the volunteers here as well as the LE staff try to address their concerns and answer their questions as to why LE (or any other CAs) cannot revoke certs haphazardly if a site or group of sites offends someone.
If these topics were deleted or hidden, other people having the same questions would not find an answer (if they did not run a simply search) and would ask again. By keeping these topics available to others, the reasons for LE not revoking certs is clear. If the topics were hidden/deleted, we'd be answering the very same questions again and again.
Where someone had a legitimate question, wouldn't censoring that question (and the answer) go against net neutrality? It's a narrow fence, net neutrality, and it does seem to have a few really narrow or wobbly sections. We're just trying to keep from falling off while keeping the fence standing.
I think the suggestion (which I, kind of, agree with) is that to revoke all the certs of *.gov.ru would violate net neutrality. And when the only arguments in favor of that course of action are "they're bad people and doing bad things" (which is all that's been said here in favor of that COA), that tends to support that conclusion.
As I think more about it, though, I admit that my comparison to spammers/scammers was somewhat off base--but it was off base in a way that makes the argument for revoking *.gov.ru even worse. In the case of a scammer, they're (in a sense) using that cert to perpetuate their evil activities, in that it adds an air of legitimacy to their fake websites. But the Russian Government doesn't need TLS certs to do their evil deeds; they've got bombs and tanks (though apparently far fewer of the latter than they did a week ago). The certs simply have no connection at all with what they're doing.
Now, I know I'm pretty much repeating myself here, and there likely isn't much that anyone can say that hasn't already been said (unless a LE representative gives a status update/change). So while I agree the topic shouldn't be deleted, I'm a little surprised it hasn't already been locked.
Thank you for your position! Your (our?) fence is most straight among number of others. I just don't see free speech around the network anymore ("thanks" to Apl & Ggl), only different parties fighting and censoring each other.
I just wanted to say that certs shouldn't be a lever in any of these wars. At least freedom certs.
Regarding neutrality +danb35 already sent an answer.
PS Let me only add, that it's a really strange/disgusting move of Russian Federation governmental bodies to put additional load on LE. At least before their access to tech wasn't attacked. Why didn't they buy certs from the market or establish a CA? Or if it's part of their "strategy" why didn't they hold the fence with you by donating, or even establishing a domestic LE branch?
You completely missed the point. The message you're citing contains thanks for sticking for free speech when so many devalued it. Sad enough, censoring often comes with double-standards; it's the worst combination. (To clarify my reaction for you. Title of the topic sounds highly political, only vaguely relating to the <gov.ru>, and nobody will benefit if LE become political organization and start to take sides.)
PS Were you ever censored, btw? Did anybody made you practice double-thinking? Anyway, I'm yours to discuss speech and censorship, but it's off-topic here. Let's take another thread or place.
I'm game. It is off topic here and we should respect that. Please lets not dilute Let's Encrypts mission with politics of any kind. I admit I am one of the primary offenders here.
PM me a link and we'll talk.
Free Speech means both this topic may exist AND comments/topics contrary to it may exist.
Preserving the existence of the topic, and any challenges to it, is an exercise in Free Speech.
Plain and simple, removing the topics - as you advocated above - is a form a Censorship.
Your request amounts to what is commonly called a "content based" or "viewpoint based" restriction on speech. In most of the world, any such restrictions are either considered to be illegal - or highly problematic - absent the presence of hateful or derogatory remarks. The original post did not denigrate, slander or otherwise demean an entity - nor did is violate the active code of conduct (see Code of Conduct - Internet Security Research Group).
I encourage you to articulate your opposition to what the original posters requested on their merits here, but your request to deny the existence of these posts solely due to your personal disagreement with them is meritless.
+jvanasco, man I don't know in what order do you read and understand messages, but please put some of your attention to timestamps and replies in-between. Without these no surprise you see the logic as broken. (In a couple of words it was: vague war-waging title, appeal not to weaponize freedom tech, explanation of no censorship policy, and appraisal for it.)
+Rip, I feel like a blind, but didn't found a way to PM. Could you send me something so I could reply?