3 ms·

> This cohort is an important constituency that we believe has been under-represented to date in the public commentary that has been posted to the Google and Mo

> This cohort is an important constituency that we believe has been under-represented to date in the public commentary that has been posted to the Google and Mozilla boards since large organizations rarely authorize employees to engage in such public discussions, particularly in an area related to security. Are these large organizations somehow incapable of putting out official statements regarding CAs? If they're being 'under-represented', it's their own fault for not speaking up.

mdip 9y ago
To me it was really bold of them to take the tone and stance that they did with regard to these large organizations. They're making the case as to why Google needed to do what it did ... all of these large organizations that will be severely impacted by having to replace all of these certificates are relying on a CA that has shown itself to not be worthy of the trust that CAs are relied upon to provide. I'm at a loss for a good analogy so I'll pick a lousy one: it'd be like if Samsung's response to the exploding Note 7 recall mandate were "Don't do this -- you're going to keep some of the biggest customers -- users of our phones -- from being able to make emergency calls/check their e-mail/respond to texts" ...yeah, but I'm still not OK with the small possibility that carrying my phone in my front pocket might result in third-degree genital burns.
- skuhn 9y ago
  As it happens, your hypothetical situation was exactly what did transpire: Samsung wanted to remotely deactivate the phones, but Verizon refused on those grounds. http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsung/ http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsu...
  - mdip 9y ago
    ... and here I thought comparing security to burning genitals might have been too much of a farce, but that takes the cake, there. :o)

3 ms·

> This cohort is an important constituency that we believe has been under-represented to date in the public commentary that has been posted to the Google and Mo

by Aaron1011 9y ago

mdip 9y ago
To me it was really bold of them to take the tone and stance that they did with regard to these large organizations. They're making the case as to why Google needed to do what it did ... all of these large organizations that will be severely impacted by having to replace all of these certificates are relying on a CA that has shown itself to not be worthy of the trust that CAs are relied upon to provide. I'm at a loss for a good analogy so I'll pick a lousy one: it'd be like if Samsung's response to the exploding Note 7 recall mandate were "Don't do this -- you're going to keep some of the biggest customers -- users of our phones -- from being able to make emergency calls/check their e-mail/respond to texts" ...yeah, but I'm still not OK with the small possibility that carrying my phone in my front pocket might result in third-degree genital burns.
- skuhn 9y ago
  As it happens, your hypothetical situation was exactly what did transpire: Samsung wanted to remotely deactivate the phones, but Verizon refused on those grounds. http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsung/ http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsu...
  - mdip 9y ago
    ... and here I thought comparing security to burning genitals might have been too much of a farce, but that takes the cake, there. :o)