I'm not sure on the weighting of the two sides that you point out, but I do broadly agree that it is about striking some balance between those two ends.
That said, if all outcomes are equally bad, I think I favor the bad outcome that doesn't open the door to accusations of a discriminatory approach/bias. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:49 AM Nadim Kobeissi via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > What a strange situation. > > On the one hand, denying DarkMatter's CA bid because of these press > articles would set the precedent of refusing to accept the engagement and > apparent good faith of a member of the industry, based only on hearsay and > with no evidence. > > On the other hand, deciding to move forward with a good-faith, transparent > and evidence-based approach actually risks creating a long-term undermining > of public confidence in the CA inclusion process. > > It really seems to me that both decisions would cause damage to the CA > inclusion process. The former would make it seem discriminatory (and to > some even somewhat xenophobic, although I don't necessarily agree with > that) while the latter would cast a serious cloud of uncertainty above the > safety of the CA root store in general that I have no idea how anyone could > or will eventually dispel. > > As a third party observer I genuinely don't know what could be considered a > good move by Mozilla at this point. I want Mozilla to both offer good faith > and a transparent process to anyone who promises to respect its mission, > but I also want it to maintain the credibility and trust that it has built > for its CA store. For it to seem impossible for Mozilla to do both at the > same time seems deeply unfortunate and a seriously problematic setting for > the future of this process overall. > > I really wish that solid evidence of the claims being made against > DarkMatter is published (if it exists). That would be a great way for > Mozilla to make a unilaterally defensible position. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > Sent from Galaxy > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:19 PM Benjamin Gabriel < > benjamin.gabr...@darkmatter.ae> wrote: > > > > > > > Benjamin Gabriel | General Counsel & SVP Legal > > Tel: +971 2 417 1417 | Mob: +971 55 260 7410 > > benjamin.gabr...@darkmatter.ae > > > > The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for > > the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > > confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, > > dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon > > this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender > and > > destroy any copies of this information. > > > > On 2/24/19 11:08 AM, Nex wrote: > > > > > The New York Times just published another investigative report that > > mentions > > > DarkMatter at length, with additional testimonies going on the > > > record: > > > > Dear Nex, > > > > The New York Times article that you reference does not add anything new > to > > the misleading allegations previously published in the Reuters article. > It > > simply repeats ad-nauseum a false, and categorically denied, narrative > > about DarkMatter, under the guise of an investigative reporting on the > > alleged surveillance practices of governmental authorities of foreign > > countries. > > > > DarkMatter is strictly a commercial company which exists to provide > > cyber-security and digital transformation services to our customers in > the > > United Arab Emirates, and the larger GCC and MENA regions. > > > > We have already noted that these misleading allegations about DarkMatter > > were originally planted by defamatory and false sources - in two (2) > > articles published on the internet - and are now repeatedly recycled by > > irresponsible journalists looking for a sensationalist angle on > > socio-political regional issues. And we have consistently, and > > categorically, denied and refuted all of the allegations about > DarkMatter, > > including on this forum. [1][2] > > > > The fact that New York Times has chosen to recycle these refuted false > > narratives about DarkMatter, without reaching out to inquire on the real > > DarkMatter story, is unfortunate. At times like this - it is important > to > > note that not all news reporting is based on factual or true events, and > is > > sometimes based on undisclosed bias or in some instances on outright > > fraudulent reporting.[3][4][5][6][7][8] > > > > We continue to push for responsible journalism that is based on truth and > > verifiable facts. > > > > Regards, > > Benjamin Gabriel > > General Counsel, DarkMatter Group > > > > [1] > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/nnLVNfqgz7g/QAj8vTobCAAJ > > [2] > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/nnLVNfqgz7g/VZf8xR-hAgAJ > > [3] https://theintercept.com/2016/02/02/a-note-to-readers/ > > [4] > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/media/the-intercept-says-reporter-falsified-quotations.html > > [5] > > > https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-fires-reporter-juan-thompson > > [6] > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/public-editor/repairing-the-credibility-cracks-after-jayson-blair.html > > [7] > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html > > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-security-policy mailing list > dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
