3 ms·
Because private companies are always competent, never abuse their privileges, and always act in the best interest of society at large. /S
by toyg 5y ago
Because private companies are always competent, never abuse their privileges, and always act in the best interest of society at large. /S
- scarface74 5y agoThe difference is that private companies don’t have the power to force me to do anything - the government can forcible take away my property and liberty.
- gruez 5y agoThe difference is that governments have a monopoly on violence. Corporations don't.
- danShumway 5y agoIf I understand correctly, this legislation isn't about the government issuing certificates; it's about the government granting inclusion privileges to the same kinds of private companies that you're worried about. I distrust private companies too, but I trust Mozilla more than I trust companies like Camerfirma, and we have a pretty long track-record that shows us that governments are typically slow to address misconduct in private companies they're partnered with. I'm not sure I understand why this is being treated as a private company vs government debate; in my mind this is a debate over whether we should all be required by the government to trust private companies that Mozilla claims already today don't meet their security standards. It feels odd to claim that a government telling me I have to trust a private company fixes corporate incompetence or malfeasance. You don't see a potential for abuse of corporate privilege or for exploitative behavior when a private, for-profit CA can't be distrusted in browsers without them first petitioning the government?