Signal-to-Snark ratio is a real thing. There's a range outside of which normals can no longer glean any accurate information. https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/990966524440596487 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ericlaw
My snark is strong enough that this is obviously snark. But in honesty: I'm tired of seeing CAs play this game and then complain that the EV market is being downsized. They're digging their own grave.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mholt6
You do understand that this is *EXACTLY* how EV is supposed to work, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
What's the metric for who gets the cert and who doesn't?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Scott_Helme @mholt6
I'm not sure what you mean by "metric", but it's at the CA's discretion. That's entirely the point, and exactly why we designed the EV UI the way we did in IE7. We wanted the CA's name *literally* on the line.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right, so it could be largest paying customer that gets the EV cert and the other refused? I don't see why if you meet the BR + EV reqs why they should be able to refuse. We want a 100% encrypted web where you get a cert "at the CA's discretion"...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
EV was never going to get the Web to 100% HTTPS, though. The original point of http://stripe.ian.sh (that EV is silly because O names are not unique) was good. This new argument does not seem very productive.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.