What a strange situation. On the one hand, denying DarkMatter's CA bid because of these press articles would set the precedent of refusing to accept the engagement and apparent good faith of a member of the industry, based only on hearsay and with no evidence.
On the other hand, deciding to move forward with a good-faith, transparent and evidence-based approach actually risks creating a long-term undermining of public confidence in the CA inclusion process. It really seems to me that both decisions would cause damage to the CA inclusion process. The former would make it seem discriminatory (and to some even somewhat xenophobic, although I don't necessarily agree with that) while the latter would cast a serious cloud of uncertainty above the safety of the CA root store in general that I have no idea how anyone could or will eventually dispel. As a third party observer I genuinely don't know what could be considered a good move by Mozilla at this point. I want Mozilla to both offer good faith and a transparent process to anyone who promises to respect its mission, but I also want it to maintain the credibility and trust that it has built for its CA store. For it to seem impossible for Mozilla to do both at the same time seems deeply unfortunate and a seriously problematic setting for the future of this process overall. I really wish that solid evidence of the claims being made against DarkMatter is published (if it exists). That would be a great way for Mozilla to make a unilaterally defensible position. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software Sent from Galaxy On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 4:19 PM Benjamin Gabriel < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Benjamin Gabriel | General Counsel & SVP Legal > Tel: +971 2 417 1417 | Mob: +971 55 260 7410 > [email protected] > > The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for > the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon > this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and > destroy any copies of this information. > > On 2/24/19 11:08 AM, Nex wrote: > > > The New York Times just published another investigative report that > mentions > > DarkMatter at length, with additional testimonies going on the > > record: > > Dear Nex, > > The New York Times article that you reference does not add anything new to > the misleading allegations previously published in the Reuters article. It > simply repeats ad-nauseum a false, and categorically denied, narrative > about DarkMatter, under the guise of an investigative reporting on the > alleged surveillance practices of governmental authorities of foreign > countries. > > DarkMatter is strictly a commercial company which exists to provide > cyber-security and digital transformation services to our customers in the > United Arab Emirates, and the larger GCC and MENA regions. > > We have already noted that these misleading allegations about DarkMatter > were originally planted by defamatory and false sources - in two (2) > articles published on the internet - and are now repeatedly recycled by > irresponsible journalists looking for a sensationalist angle on > socio-political regional issues. And we have consistently, and > categorically, denied and refuted all of the allegations about DarkMatter, > including on this forum. [1][2] > > The fact that New York Times has chosen to recycle these refuted false > narratives about DarkMatter, without reaching out to inquire on the real > DarkMatter story, is unfortunate. At times like this - it is important to > note that not all news reporting is based on factual or true events, and is > sometimes based on undisclosed bias or in some instances on outright > fraudulent reporting.[3][4][5][6][7][8] > > We continue to push for responsible journalism that is based on truth and > verifiable facts. > > Regards, > Benjamin Gabriel > General Counsel, DarkMatter Group > > [1] > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/nnLVNfqgz7g/QAj8vTobCAAJ > [2] > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/nnLVNfqgz7g/VZf8xR-hAgAJ > [3] https://theintercept.com/2016/02/02/a-note-to-readers/ > [4] > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/media/the-intercept-says-reporter-falsified-quotations.html > [5] > https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/02/the-intercept-fires-reporter-juan-thompson > [6] > https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/public-editor/repairing-the-credibility-cracks-after-jayson-blair.html > [7] > https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
