On 7/01/13 15:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:15 AM, ianG <i...@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
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
