3 ms·
The problem here with Rachel behaviour is not if they are guilty or not. The problem here is that there is an expectation that a CA have a certain standard of b
by di4na 4y ago
The problem here with Rachel behaviour is not if they are guilty or not. The problem here is that there is an expectation that a CA have a certain standard of behaviour and ability to handle... well adversarial situations. Because that is what a CA has to do! They are the beholder of our trust.
By behaving like they do and more particularly not providing any of the proof asked in the process, Trust is broken. They do not demonstrate they have their shit together, do not demonstrate they understand the process nor the problem, and in general shows they are not equipped in term of knowledge and skills to be a CA.
That they are guilty or not do not matter anymore at this point. They have failed at a more basic level of being a CA. They cannot do the things we expect a CA to do. Them being breached or using their power for bad things do not even matter anymore.
- dcow 4y agoIn civil courts, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, usually. Because this is what happens if you let public opinion rule. It’s unfair to the accused and rarely ends in their favor, regardless of innocence or guilt, as you so clearly put it.
- SkeuomorphicBee 4y agoBeing a root CA is a privilege, not a right. A root CA has enormous power over the whole internet, so they must prove that they are absolutely trustworthy beyond any doubt.
- threatofrain 4y agoIn civil courts the burden is the preponderance of evidence. And trust is a higher standard yet where the burden is on those who want the benefits of being trusted.
- marcinzm 4y agoPart of a CAs job is to manage public opinion because their job is to maintain trust in the CA system. If they cannot instill trust then they should not be a CA.
- dcow 4y agoIs it? I'll admit I have no knowledge of the charter of a modern CA.
- isaacremuant 4y agoI read the entire thread too and "I'm disappointed" that you portrayed (in the root of this comment) and unfair picture of "being harassed by a mob" while then retreating to "I don't know how this works". It's basically a series of vague appeals to emotion. > It really feels like a perversely inappropriate forum for discussing a complicated issue like that. and > Rachel was a victim of a sloppy but effective smear campaign. The facts are neatly summarized in the thread as to why the CA was yanked. It's dispassionate (Except the MS flame) and to the point. Your defense is almost as poor as the slight accusation of the researcher as misogynistic.