<div dir="ltr">To be fair, I was grossly simplifying the argument that it is:<div>a) A crime to mislead a QGIS, QIIS, or QTIS within either the Jurisdiction of Incorporation or the Place of Business (as Ben and Kirk suggested)</div><div>b) A crime to use cert for 'evil' purposes, as Kirk suggested</div><div><br></div><div>There are many other reductions of the arguments being made here that would also apply, but I thought it worth pointing out that the argument that it'd be a crime to commit crime, is somewhat of a flawed tautology, and by no means a way to conclude we'd prevent crime by criminalizing crime.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Christian Heutger via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="DE" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-6051778848827271611WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It also means that a crime favours another crime, and that is exactly how criminals are caught, because they leave their mark, the more so, the better, because it makes it easier to get to the bottom
of it. If you were to skip steps now, you would also deprive yourself of opportunities to hunt down criminals.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Von: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Public <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> im Auftrag von Ryan Sleevi via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Antworten an: </b>Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Datum: </b>Dienstag, 28. November 2017 um 19:26<br>
<b>An: </b>Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben.wilson@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben.wilson@digicert.com</a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Betreff: </b>Re: [cabfpub] Obtaining an EV cert for phishing<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just to square these comments: <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kirk's position was that EV certificates provide a way of tracking those who'd commit crime online because they have to disclose identity.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Gerv and James pointed out that the identity information is only as useful as it is vetted, and there's scenarios where the vetting may not be rigorous.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ben pointed out that it'd be a crime to lie to the government (although, as a broad statement, this varies by jurisdiction)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">By combining these views, it seems like we're in agreement that criminals who are willing to commit crime may need to commit crime to commit crime. That doesn't seem like the requirement to commit crime would deter a criminal from committing
crime, but what do I know - I'm not a criminal (I don't think...)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Ben Wilson via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Gerv wrote: I would say that the EV Guidelines allow EV issuers to trust things which are QGISes because there's an assumption that information in a Government information source will have had some level of checking.<br>
<br>
I'd disagree. QGISes are relied upon because everyone relies on them because lying to the government is a crime.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@<wbr>cabforum.org</a>] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham via Public<br>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:46 AM<br>
To: Kirk Hall <<a href="mailto:Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com" target="_blank">Kirk.Hall@entrustdatacard.com</a><wbr>>; James Burton <<a href="mailto:james@sirburton.com" target="_blank">james@sirburton.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Obtaining an EV cert for phishing<br>
<br>
Hi Kirk,<br>
<br>
On 28/11/17 17:03, Kirk Hall wrote:<br>
> Thanks for the additional information, James. In the end, the EV<br>
> Guidelines did exactly what they were designed to do – they provided a<br>
> way for the public to find you (as the company owner) if you used your<br>
> EV certificate and domain to do something wrong.<br>
<br>
They did, but only because he was honest. He is pointing out that it may not be difficult, due to the lack of checking, for a dishonest person to use fake information. I do think that's an issue of concern.<br>
<br>
I would say that the EV Guidelines allow EV issuers to trust things which are QGISes because there's an assumption that information in a Government information source will have had some level of checking. But it seems from this experience that this is not true
in all cases. That concerns me. Do we have to agree that Companies House is not a valid QGIS?<br>
<br>
This is not a phishing issue, it's a more general "integrity of the EV process" issue.<br>
<br>
Gerv<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Public mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/public</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>