[cryptography] another cert failure
iang at iang.org
Mon Jan 7 08:17:18 EST 2013
On 7/01/13 15:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:15 AM, ianG <iang at iang.org> wrote:
>> Yeah. Little known fact is that Mozilla maintains confidential discussions
>> with the CAs. The "open group" is basically theater, it has been totally
>> owned by the CAs for many years. Mozilla routinely reports no meetings,
>> minutes, positions, representations, agreements, NDAs, etc. Open
>> contributors have been punching blind in a roman circus since the end of the
>> first policy, which is why the open policy group has not really achieved as
>> much as the advertisement claims.
> This begs a question for me.....
> Safety nets are usually dismantled in pursuit of an agenda, and money
> makes it happen by satisfying greed. Confer: Enron and Arthur
> Andersen; and Wall Street and Ratings Firms, etc. I understand the
> agenda. What I don't understand is Mozilla's position.
> Mozilla is a Google whore and they are making money hand over fist.
> Confer: http://www.google.com/#q=mozilla+google+irs.
Well. I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that Mozilla has the problem
of having one far-too-successful customer.
> In addition,
> Mozilla does not make money form the CAs.
> What is in it for Mozilla?
You are examining it from the pov, perhaps, of a profit-making
corporation? That all decisions need to be traceable up to the benefit
to the shareholder?
Mozilla isn't a shareholder-driven organisation. It's a not-for-profit
oriented to a public benefit, as espoused by principles, mission
Which leads it into a dangerous area - it is then subject to what the
economists call "capture" by special interests.
The CAs are a special interest. More dots?
More information about the cryptography