Is the schema considered private information or just information not required to be released via FOIA? ie: Can't some nice employee leak this information or is it legally protected?

Once the information is released, can anyone can make FOIA requests using the schema?

Under Illinois law there are just two kinds of data: normal data and data exempt from FOIA. Up to and including the appellate review of Matt's case, schemas were in the formal, normal category. After the State Supreme Court review, they are now per se exempt from FOIA.

It's not legally protected. An employee could leak it. A public body can voluntarily reveal documents that are exempt from FOIA (absent some other Illinois law prohibiting disclosure). A public body can disclose source code, for instance, despite it being explicitly exempt in the statute. "This data is exempt" is an affirmative defense that the public body has to raise.

The gov't releasing the hardware and software licencing used in CANVAS already gives that away.

> They could have taken legal actions against Sectigo's CCO directly

You are only suggesting they could have handled it worse. Why would they take legal action against the CCO for statements on a bug report other than to squash transparency?

> If DigiCert is about to do something crazy like take down all your websites, courts are generally willing to put a temporary stop to it without understanding all the details. "Preserve the status quo" and "prevent irreparable harm" are the buzzwords.

So if DigiCert's irreparable harm was great would that prevent it? Like legally requiring CAs to follow their revocation policies or pay millions in damages?

You're conflating DigiCert's argument against issuance of the TRO, with the irreparable harm the complaintant (Alegeus) is alleging will occur if the TRO is not granted.

Are there actually millions in damages being caused by delaying revocation of these certificates? Courts are generally averse to “penalty clauses” where you make up a nonsense number and call it damages. (Irreparable harm means that ordering monetary compensation can’t remediate it, so a more reasonable fee would probably not count.)

That sounds like a legal height then.

They don't need approval for under 400 FT AGL in class G airspace.

The idiots reporting on it have NO idea how high these drones are. And the military has a bunch of carved airspace in various places. I think last time i looked (4 weeks ago), there was some reserved airspace off Cape Hatteras for the US Marines.

To add to your last point, looking at maps of drone sightings in the area, the biggest hotspots are in reserved airspace over military assets, including ones that store and load nukes on ships.

If they were truly a threat, or some random person's drones, they would have been taken care of nearly instantly.

I have personally seen the response of someone flying their drone in that airspace. They do not hesitate to send out goons with guns strapped over their shoulders and megaphones to make it clear that what you're doing is very much not okay.

Last I checked (things could have changed) they do not need approvals for hobbyist use. Official government use and even sponsored research absolutely required approvals. And this is very likely not a hobbyist.

> despite the drones being bigger and higher tech than retail drones.

How does anyone know how big these are? I've heard reports like this:

1. They looks larger than normal drones. 2. The look like they are operating at a height greater than 400 ft AGL.

How do they know the height? If they don't know the height, they certainly don't know the size. If it looks large, it isn't very high.

If it is large and high, I would think they would get some radar contacts.

If these are heavier than 55 pounds, I think we'd see the FAA jumping all over it. I also don't see why any LE would announce that they are actively figuring it out as they'd want to keep the element of surprise and track the drone back to the operators.

> Why isn't anyone bringing them down?

Only federal authorities can do anything to aircraft. This is in the realm of the FAA.

> How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are?

What kind of threat are we worried about here that wasn't around yesterday (last year)?

> White House says they aren't foreign adversaries I don't think the military is going to reveal its methods and capabilities.

> Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech

He was harassing parents of dead children in order to personally enrich himself. Why do you think he shouldn't have to forgo his ill begotten gains? It's only 1B USD, because he refused to stop doing it. And then he decided not to really show up for court and accept the summary judgement of 1B USD.

Most of his penalty has nothing to do with speech. He can keep on speaking all he wants. He might suffer consequences, but he is free to say whatever he wants to.

How could Hillary lose if she had an 80% chance? That seems impossible (if i'm bad at math)!

For real, 80% is effectively coin flip territory for me. I wouldn't put any important bets on 80%, for the same reason I don't play Russian roulette.

Instead of a pihole, you'd run a https proxy that doesn't trust the certs i guess.

Which https proxy you're referring to? HTTP proxies capable of forwarding HTTPS just offer HTTP CONNECT method, which allows client to tunnel regular TCP connection and HTTPS inside it. These proxies do not do anything with certificates.