4 ms·

> In practice, this would simply move a little bit of control over the list of accepted authorities from browser vendors to EU institutions, which is not terrib

> In practice, this would simply move a little bit of control over the list of accepted authorities from browser vendors to EU institutions, which is not terribly unreasonable a stance. I have zero trust in the competence and intentions of EU institutions I already have to trust the firm that maintains the browser, how does adding another party help exactly? this proposal's endgame is mandatory key escrow (attempt number #8 or so)

rosetremiere 5y ago
> I have zero trust in EU institutions, Why is that?
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  Because of people like Axel Voss, Von der Leyen etc. https://qz.com/1389385/article-11-and-article-13-axel-voss-is-surprised-by-eu-copyright-law/ https://qz.com/1389385/article-11-and-article-13-axel-voss-i...
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Browser vendors have an incentive to maintain trust, it's their stock in trade. If they screw up, it directly affects their bottom line because people will move elsewhere. Their goals align closely with my own. A foreign government (or even my own) has somewhere between zero and weak alignment with my goals. There's little reason they would want to choose good certificate authorities and strong reasons why they would choose ones their intelligence agencies can backdoor. Why should I add them to the chain of trust?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Browser vendors monetize your data, that is their main trade. Having lots of users doesn't matter if you don't control them in some way, such as decide who gets to be trusted as a CA. The browsers are supporting the current tech hegemony for CA's, for some reason Americans are much more "trustworthy" than people from anywhere else, do you really believe that? Why should the people in Europe be forced to trust shady American companies like Google or Microsoft who are or likely will get compromised by the American state? It makes sense for them to regulate this so that they can have European options.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > it's their stock in trade Their stock in trade is being easier to use and more feature-rich than the competition. Trust doesn't factor into it, in the sense that trust in a browser does not come from track record: It's all marketing, all the way down. Thus, if they screw up it does not matter. This point is easy to see because they frequently do screw up and it hasn't had any impact so far. There's no reason to assume it will have one some day.
  - pwlb 5y ago
    Where exactly do people move if they only chose between Firefox and Chrome, there is not enough competition in the browser market
- native_samples 5y ago
  Because they have a demonstrated track record of incompetence combined with micromanagement combined with epic levels of corruption.
jcelerier 5y ago
I have zero trust in the intentions of browsers, and at least a little bit in the EU. Now what do we do?
- rocqua 5y ago
  Nothing, so we keep the status quo?
  - toyg 5y ago
    the status quo favours one of the two commenters upthread, so it makes sense that the other side will keep pushing. Compromise will be required.
    - Thiez 5y ago
      There are some people who think women should not be allowed to vote. Or that pi equals 3. Just because different opinions exist does not mean compromise is required. Sometimes it's perfectly okay to just tell someone to fuck off.
      - toyg 5y ago
        Telling people to fuck off when they argue for discrimination is fine, but doing so when they want accountability is the definition of tyrannical behaviour. Tyrannies, even enlightened ones, eventually tend to fall.
        Thiez 5y ago
        The current system has done a very good job keeping certificate authorities honest and secure by holding them accountable. Those who disagree can easily modify the trusted root certificates on their own devices to their liking. The article presents several arguments why the proposed legislation would be worse than what we have now. Perhaps those who support these plans could try countering these arguments, rather than trying to force a "compromise" while accusing the other side of tyrannical behavior. Some might argue that the government enforcing which websites are trusted looks a lot like a tyranny.

rosetremiere 5y ago

> I have zero trust in EU institutions, Why is that?

rjzzleep 5y ago
Because of people like Axel Voss, Von der Leyen etc. https://qz.com/1389385/article-11-and-article-13-axel-voss-is-surprised-by-eu-copyright-law/ https://qz.com/1389385/article-11-and-article-13-axel-voss-i...
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
Browser vendors have an incentive to maintain trust, it's their stock in trade. If they screw up, it directly affects their bottom line because people will move elsewhere. Their goals align closely with my own. A foreign government (or even my own) has somewhere between zero and weak alignment with my goals. There's little reason they would want to choose good certificate authorities and strong reasons why they would choose ones their intelligence agencies can backdoor. Why should I add them to the chain of trust?
- Jensson 5y ago
  Browser vendors monetize your data, that is their main trade. Having lots of users doesn't matter if you don't control them in some way, such as decide who gets to be trusted as a CA. The browsers are supporting the current tech hegemony for CA's, for some reason Americans are much more "trustworthy" than people from anywhere else, do you really believe that? Why should the people in Europe be forced to trust shady American companies like Google or Microsoft who are or likely will get compromised by the American state? It makes sense for them to regulate this so that they can have European options.
- krageon 5y ago
  > it's their stock in trade Their stock in trade is being easier to use and more feature-rich than the competition. Trust doesn't factor into it, in the sense that trust in a browser does not come from track record: It's all marketing, all the way down. Thus, if they screw up it does not matter. This point is easy to see because they frequently do screw up and it hasn't had any impact so far. There's no reason to assume it will have one some day.
- pwlb 5y ago
  Where exactly do people move if they only chose between Firefox and Chrome, there is not enough competition in the browser market
native_samples 5y ago
Because they have a demonstrated track record of incompetence combined with micromanagement combined with epic levels of corruption.

jcelerier 5y ago

I have zero trust in the intentions of browsers, and at least a little bit in the EU. Now what do we do?

rocqua 5y ago
Nothing, so we keep the status quo?
- toyg 5y ago
  the status quo favours one of the two commenters upthread, so it makes sense that the other side will keep pushing. Compromise will be required.
  - Thiez 5y ago
    There are some people who think women should not be allowed to vote. Or that pi equals 3. Just because different opinions exist does not mean compromise is required. Sometimes it's perfectly okay to just tell someone to fuck off.
    - toyg 5y ago
      Telling people to fuck off when they argue for discrimination is fine, but doing so when they want accountability is the definition of tyrannical behaviour. Tyrannies, even enlightened ones, eventually tend to fall.
      - Thiez 5y ago
        The current system has done a very good job keeping certificate authorities honest and secure by holding them accountable. Those who disagree can easily modify the trusted root certificates on their own devices to their liking. The article presents several arguments why the proposed legislation would be worse than what we have now. Perhaps those who support these plans could try countering these arguments, rather than trying to force a "compromise" while accusing the other side of tyrannical behavior. Some might argue that the government enforcing which websites are trusted looks a lot like a tyranny.