4 ms·

This submission's title was editorialized by the submitter. It was submitted as "Google CA", which is misleading, as the submission is about the preexisting Goo

This submission's title was editorialized by the submitter. It was submitted as "Google CA", which is misleading, as the submission is about the preexisting Google CA's addition as a root CA in the Mozilla trust store. The article's underlying title is the more descriptive 'Google Trust Services Root Inclusion Request'. The Mozilla bugzilla issue [1] contains a more thorough picture of the process that went into considering these root CAs for inclusion in the Mozilla trust store, while the originally submitted URL [2] is focused on summarizing some of the background and rationale and inviting public comment. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1325532 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1325532 [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/KYwIf67hcMg https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.securi...

geofft 8y ago
Except that the application in the article contains the following statement: > Customers of the Google PKI are the general public. We will not require that customers have a domain registration with Google, use domain suffixes where Google is the registrant, or have other services from Google. This is not currently true of the existing Google root, and "Google CA" seems like an accurate-enough way of describing this change.
- nailer 8y ago
  Submitter here, and yes exactly.
dang 8y ago
Ok, we've changed the title to that of the page.
- nailer 8y ago
  As geofft already points out, original title was accurate and new title removes the point. Dan how about you change it to: > "Customers of the Google PKI are the general public" From the actual article if you think "Google CA" is too short, or just restore the original title?
  - dang 8y ago
    That makes sense, but since users are disagreeing about what's accurate here, it's probably best that we stick with the original title of the article. Once a thread gets this popular, it's not so title-dependent anyway. Readers will click on the comments and quickly get up to speed with what the article is about.
    - nailer 8y ago
      Nobody is actually disagreeing that Google is making a public CA, as it is in the body of the article, and is written by a Google employee. Rather niftich didn't read the article (and is common on HN) and wanted to say thee title wasn't accurate. You're welcome to revert it back to the original title ('Google CA') as you mention.
      - dang 8y ago
        It's nitpicky, but the original title is the title of the article. Otherwise anyone could rewrite any title and call theirs the original. Also, please don't slight another user like that on HN. I've put "CA" back in the title above.
        nailer 8y ago
        > original title is the title of the article. Otherwise anyone could rewrite any title and call theirs the original. Those sentences seem to contradict each other. Let's leave original title ('Google CA') and current title (whatever it is when you read this) as their existing meanings. The ancestor post said 'Google CA' was misleading despite the article contents saying Google is making a CA. I criticised the action, which deserves criticism, and very specificaly did not criticise the user. But I don't really want to expend any more energy here and suspect you don't either so let's leave this discussion.

geofft 8y ago

Except that the application in the article contains the following statement: > Customers of the Google PKI are the general public. We will not require that customers have a domain registration with Google, use domain suffixes where Google is the registrant, or have other services from Google. This is not currently true of the existing Google root, and "Google CA" seems like an accurate-enough way of describing this change.

nailer 8y ago
Submitter here, and yes exactly.

dang 8y ago

Ok, we've changed the title to that of the page.

nailer 8y ago
As geofft already points out, original title was accurate and new title removes the point. Dan how about you change it to: > "Customers of the Google PKI are the general public" From the actual article if you think "Google CA" is too short, or just restore the original title?
- dang 8y ago
  That makes sense, but since users are disagreeing about what's accurate here, it's probably best that we stick with the original title of the article. Once a thread gets this popular, it's not so title-dependent anyway. Readers will click on the comments and quickly get up to speed with what the article is about.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Nobody is actually disagreeing that Google is making a public CA, as it is in the body of the article, and is written by a Google employee. Rather niftich didn't read the article (and is common on HN) and wanted to say thee title wasn't accurate. You're welcome to revert it back to the original title ('Google CA') as you mention.
    - dang 8y ago
      It's nitpicky, but the original title is the title of the article. Otherwise anyone could rewrite any title and call theirs the original. Also, please don't slight another user like that on HN. I've put "CA" back in the title above.
      - nailer 8y ago
        > original title is the title of the article. Otherwise anyone could rewrite any title and call theirs the original. Those sentences seem to contradict each other. Let's leave original title ('Google CA') and current title (whatever it is when you read this) as their existing meanings. The ancestor post said 'Google CA' was misleading despite the article contents saying Google is making a CA. I criticised the action, which deserves criticism, and very specificaly did not criticise the user. But I don't really want to expend any more energy here and suspect you don't either so let's leave this discussion.