Good day, > Well now they are having problems being believed and I am afraid that I > can't actually vouch for their honesty any more.
There seem to be at least three different issues in this discussion now, all only loosely related and I wonder what some persons' motivation has been to jump from one to the other. 1) An unknown OP accuses EFF, Tor and convergence of spying on people. This is supposed to be supported by a set of links to various topics. I have actually taken the trouble to follow some of the links the OP has given, and my take on it is that the OP interprets them very differently than I - and most people - would. I cannot find evidence of any spying going on. As I have already written, the privacy issues of the Distributed Observatory, Convergence, Perspectives and Tor are all known, to researchers at least. You might argue that the average user wouldn't understand the topic, and you would be correct. However, this has not been pointed out nor discussed yet. 2) The integrity of the EFF/iSEC/Moxie/Tor has been called in question by you, Phillip, based on one issue in their talks at Defcon and 27C3 has been. I remember that I have already written to you on this subject, albeit probably on a different mailing list (randombit?). I agree that a CA as an organisation is not the same as CA:True in an intermediate certificate because it all depends on where organisational control is exercised. Fair enough, and in the interest of scientific objectivity, EFF/iSEC should have acknowledged the way they count CAs in their talks. However, as for the other results of their talks I can myself confirm many of them as we have run a similar (considerably larger) analysis over the past 2 years and have published our results at IMC 2011. The numbers are in line. So it all boils down to what you call an agenda. I think it's fair to say that the EFF has an agenda, they actually state it on their homepage. At the same time, I remember you, Phillip, telling off people for using the word ComodoGate as if avoiding it made any difference. Given your own employer, others could thus make the counter claim that you have an agenda, too. Personally, I don't think political claims and counter claims should play a role here, and I am not going to discuss this. I'd much rather discuss the numbers and their meaning than the possible underlying agendas. 3) Some issue about Iran, which seems not to be connected to the issues at hand? I do not want to mix up the three, so I'll stop here. Ralph -- Dipl.-Inform. Ralph Holz I8: Network Architectures and Services Technische Universität München http://www.net.in.tum.de/de/mitarbeiter/holz/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
