> On Oct 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Paul Walsh via dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> 
> writes:
>> we conducted the same research with 85,000 active users over a period of 
>> 12 months
> As I've already pointed out weeks ago when you first raised this, your
> marketing department conducted a survey of EV marketing effectiveness.  

[PW] With respect Peter, you articulate your opinion doesn’t make it a matter 
of fact. Read the article properly and you will see that it’s not from a 
marketing department. It’s a small startup that wanted to conduct a social 

> If
> you have a refereed, peer-reviewed study published at a conference or in 
> an academic journal, please reference it, not a marketing survey 
> masquerading as a "study”.

Rubbish. We don’t need to publish at a conference or in an academic journal for 
it to demonstrate a point. If *you* don’t want to trust it, that’s ok. I don’t 
expect everyone to trust everything that is written.

As Homer Simpson said; “70% of all reports are made up”. 

Our work is not marketing - you obviously didn’t read the methodology and the 
reasons or you wouldn’t make such silly comments. 

> A second suggestion, if you don't want to publish any research (by which I
> mean real research, not rent-seeking CA marketing) supporting your position, 

Did you read any of the words I wrote? I’ve said more than once that I don’t 
work for a CA - never have. You’re obviously a CA-hater and hate everything 
that’s ever discussed about website identity. Haters are gonna hate. I couldn’t 
be more impartial.

> is that you fork Firefox - it is after all an open-source product - add 
> whatever EV UI you like to it, and publish it as an alternative to Firefox.  
> If your approach works as you claim, it'll be so obviously superior to 
> Firefox that everyone will go with your fork rather than the original.

Another weird comment. Forking code and building products doesn’t mean people 
will use it. I have nothing to prove to anyone. If all the browser vendors did 
as I suggest it would mean there’s no need for our flagship product. So how on 
earth could I be biased. My commentary or counter productive for my 
shareholders and team. But I care about what’s in the best of industry. You 
clearly don’t because you need to have the word “Google” or “Stanford” stamped 
on a PDF. None of the authors of any of those documents come close to the level 
of experience that my team and I have - including our industry contributions. I 
was the first person to ever re-write Tim Berner’s Lee’s vision of the “one 
web” when I co-founded the Mobile Web Initiative. I shouldn’t have to throw 
these things around just to appease you. Do your research if you actually care.

> For everyone else who feels this interminable debate has already gone on
> far too long and I'm not helping it, yeah, sorry, I'd consigned the thread 
> to the spam folder for awhile, had a brief look back, and saw this, which 
> indicates it's literally gone nowhere in about a month.

Go play in your spam folder for a little longer because I’m done responding to 
your insults. You didn’t question anything outside our intent which is to 
question my integrity. I won’t accept that - it’s as insulting as it gets.

> I can see why Mozilla avoided this endless broken-record discussion, it's
> not contributing anything but just going round and round in circles.

It’s going around in circles because you refuse to take the time and effort to 
read what has been written. Instead, you assume we have ulterior motives. As 
I’ve said, my motives are not necessarily in the best interest of my company. 

- Paul

> Peter.

dev-security-policy mailing list

Reply via email to