[cryptography] another cert failure

ianG 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 
statement, etc.

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?

iang




More information about the cryptography mailing list