[elmo2you]

I may be (legitimately) flagged for asking a question that may sound antagonizing ... but asked with sincerity: is at all smart to mention Firefox and transparency in the same sentence, at least at this particular moment in time?

While this no doubt is an overall win, at least for most and in most cases, afaik this isn't completely without problems of its own. I just hope it won't lead to a systemd-like situation, where a cadre of (opinionated) people with power get to decide what's right from wrong, based on their beliefs about what might only be a subset of reality (albeit their only/full one at that).

Not trying to be dismissive here. Just have genuine concerns and reservations. Even if mostly intuitively for now; no concrete ones yet. Maybe it's just a Pavlov-reaction, after reading the name Firefox. Honestly can't tell.

[lxgr]

You’re spot on: You are reacting seemingly without understanding the fundamentals of what you are reacting to.

Certificate Transparency [1] is an important technology that improves TLS/HTTPS security, and the name was not invented by Mozilla to my knowledge.

If Firefox were to implement a hypothetical IETF standard called “private caching”, would you also be cynical about Firefox “doing something private at this point in time” without even reading up what the technology in question does?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency

[elmo2you]

> You’re spot on: You are reacting seemingly without understanding the fundamentals of what you are reacting to.

What if I did (understand)? What if I knew a thing or two about it, even some lesser known details and side-effects? Maybe including a controversy or two, or at least an odd limitation and potential hazard at that. But, you correctly do point out that Firefox isn't to blame for implementing somebody else's "standard". Responsible for any and all consequences? Nonetheless, certainly yes.

Aside from now probably not being the best of times for Firefox, my main (potential) concern still stands. However, it is hardly a Firefox-only one, I'll give it that.

[bawolff]

> What if I did (understand)?

I think its pretty clear you don't.

> What if I knew a thing or two about it, even some lesser known details and side-effects?

Then you would explicitly mention them instead of alluding to them.

People who know what they are talking about actually bring up the things that they are concerned about. They don't just say, i know an issue but im not going to tell you what it is.

[bawolff]

> is at all smart to mention Firefox and transparency in the same sentence, at least at this particular moment in time?

What are you expecting them to do? Rename the technology 1984 style?

> I just hope it won't lead to a systemd-like situation, where a cadre of (opinionated) people with power get to decide what's right from wrong, based on their beliefs about what might only be a subset of reality (albeit their only/full one at that).

This is a non sensical statement. I mean that literally. It does not make sense.

> Just have genuine concerns and reservations

Do you? Because it doesn't sound like it.

[perching_aix]

I guess this is a good lesson on what the reasoning one would typically (and unfortunately) bring to a mainstream political thread results in when met with a topic from another area of life instead, particularly a technical one.

Especially this:

> where a cadre of (opinionated) people with power get to decide what's right from wrong, based on their beliefs about what might only be a subset of reality (albeit their only/full one at that).

This is always true. There's no arrangement where you can outsource reasoning and decisionmaking (by choice or by coercion) but also not. That's a contradiction.

[elmo2you]

> This is always true. There's no arrangement where you entrust someone else with decisionmaking (by choice or not nonwithstanding) but then they're somehow not the ones performing the decisionmaking afterwards.

I'm well aware of that. On itself there isn't a problem with it, in principle at least. Right until it leads to bad decisions being pushed through, and more often in ignorance rather than malice. I personally only have a real problem with it when people or tech ends up harmed or even destroyed, just because of ignorance rather than deliberate arbitrary choices (after consideration, hopefully).

To be clear, I'm not saying that any of that is the case here. But lets just say that browser vendors in general, and Mozilla as of lately in particular, aren't on my "I trust you blindly at making the right decisions" list.

[lxgr]

> browser vendors in general, and Mozilla as of lately in particular, aren't on my "I trust you blindly at making the right decisions" list.

That's entirely fair. But what does this have to do with Mozilla's decision to enforce Certificate Transparency in Firefox?

If you have a concrete concern, voicing it could lead to a much more productive discussion than exuding a general aura of distrust, even if warranted.

[perching_aix]

I do see pretty massive problems with it, such as those you list off, but the unfortunate truth is that one cannot know or do everything themselves. So usually it's not even a choice but a coercive scenario.

For example, say I want to ensure my food is safe to eat. That would require farmland where I can grow my own food. Say I buy some, but then do I have the knowledge and the means to figure out whether the food I grew is actually safe to eat? After all, I just bought some random plot of farmland, how would I know what was in it? Maybe it wasn't even the land that's contaminated but instead the wind brought over some chance contamination? And so on.