Slashdot Mirror
Small Businesses Worry About MS Anti-Phishing
prostoalex writes "Ever get that warm feeling of safety, when the anti-phishing toolbar on Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 turns green, telling you it's safe to shop on the site you're visiting? Well, you probably don't, but the millions of Internet users who will soon be running IE7 probably will be paying attention to the anti-phishing warnings. WSJ.com is reporting on how Microsoft is making it tough for small businesses to assure they're treated properly by the anti-phishing algorithm." From the article: "[S]ole proprietorships, general partnerships and individuals won't be eligible for the new, stricter security certificates that Microsoft requires to display the color. There are about 20.6 million sole proprietorships and general partnerships in the U.S... though it isn't clear how many are engaged in e-commerce... 'Are people going to trust the green more than white? Yes, they will,' says Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc. and an expert on online payments and fraud. 'All the business is going to go to the greens, it's kind of obvious.'"
'Are people going to trust the green more than white? Yes, they will,' says Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc. and an expert on online payments and fraud.
WTF? Shouldn't that read:
'Are people going to notice the green or than white? No, they wont,' says WMF, an analyst at slashdot Inc. and an expert on stupid punditry.
On a slightly different note, I think the submitter has gotten the new expensive secure certs gold-rush/scam confused with the anti-phishing tech. Not surprising 'cause the article melds them together in a rather confusing manner.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Microsoft may think they've solved a problem and maybe they have, but this could be creating a bigger problem, though as usual it'll be no skin off of Microsoft's nose.
Microsoft's stance (FTA):
It may not be formal logic (all farmers wear overalls, therefor if I wear overalls.... (hint: I am not a farmer)), but most internet users are going to make the simple logical leap and assume that not "green" implies not legitimate.
It's easy for Microsoft to skate... they don't live the existence of normal business - it's a shame they have so much input into what others' business rules look like. This probably isn't fair. There has to be a legitimate way to become legitimate.
Gartner's a bunch of hacks, sure, but they've got a point. "Green means good" is something that is easily hammered into the heads of the l^Husers who'll be dumb enough to use IE7. Unless they've got a really good reason to buy from a site that isn't "Microsoft Approved," they won't.
I doubt it'll be a huge difference, but it'll be noticeable.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I hope a user smart enough to notice and use the phishing feature of IE, would be smart enough to use Firefox instead
This feels like extortion. If you dont pay up you wont get any bussiness. I know this shouldnt be but people are dumb and will believe anything. Just wait till we get the "turn-address-bar-green-exploit" and then the fun starts.
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
I wonder if Microsoft considers people reselling their old copies of XP and 98 to be phishing?
Or doing anything Microsoft doesn't agree with?
Otherwise there could be a big resale market when Vista comes out?
That even Microsoft itself has allowed its security certificates to lapse in the past, I don't think this is going to mean much. As soon as the address bar goes white when getting updates from microsoft.com, people will start to ignore it.
Besides, the user sophisticated enough to notice the difference probably won't care - by now, he's already got a set of favorite bargain sites, and when their address bar stays white, he'll just assume they're too cheap to buy the MS cert. After all, how *do* they undercut the competition?
And I'm guessing that most people - if they notice at all - will not be any more cautious. After all, that's what they bought anti-virus for, right? I'd be willing to bet that the average user believes AV software protects them from everything bad that could happen when using a computer.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Countdown to the phisher finding a way to subvert the system and obtain legitimate certs to green-light their scam sites :
4... 3... 2... 1...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Okay, as someone who doesn't typically use IE7 I honestly have no idea how this thing works, and my tests (going to amazon.com) didn't reveal any green or anything with the phishing thing turned on. I noticed that the article talked about the filter as though a new certificate was required, yet when I looked up how it worked it seemed like the filter actually evaluated each page on the spot and used heuristics to determine if it looked suspicious or not.
/. users seem to have that built into their genome, but I wonder if perhaps the article is a bit biased. Does anyone know whether or not a new certificate is required to get a green rating? MS's information seems to say green means IE doesn't think it's phishing, this article seems to say that green means it has a new certificate, who's right?
Now then I know MS is going to get some major bashings here, because most
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
If you make certificates too easy to obtain then every phisher and his dog will just buy one and create a false impression of legitimacy. If you try too hard to restrict them to bona fide companies then you risk shutting out the mom and pop outfits. What's the answer?
Anyone what approach Firefox takes compared to IE7 here?
From TFA, this is the reasoning behind the stocking saleswoman's problems. Now, I tend to disagree that it's difficult to find criteria for validating a Proprietorship, since I've formed one myself. While getting the trade certificate and license to collect tax are easy, obtaining a valid small business bank account is not. I'm thinking that those 3 taken as a whole should be enough information to determine whether the Proprietorship in question exists and is doing legitimate business, at least here in Canada.
I don't think Microsoft screwed up here, incredibly enough. They've released a new product based on standards (of all things!). It doesn't erroneously display this woman's site in yellow or red, and it will correctly display it in green when the forum which determined the new certificate standard makes it available to Proprietorships. The article accuses Microsoft of tilting the online commerce playing field heavily toward big business again, but this isn't really Microsoft's fault. I agree that the new certificate standard should have included everyone from the get-go, but you can't fault Microsoft for building this useful feature on the latest standard.
mandelbr0t
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
That being said, I really think the SSL authorities should REALLY check out who they are giving certs too.
Users will quickly learn to ignore the status bar color just like they've learned to ignore all other security warnings (thanks to expired certificates and other false negatives we throw in their face every day).
pay up or form a rival gang to hack the green bar
I agree with Microsoft, actually; it can be difficult to take what looks like a perfectly legitimate business and guarantee that they aren't actually sniffing for your personal information. But only labeling large businesses as "safe" will indeed put serious burdens on smaller companies.
Perhaps Microsoft could allow for companies who wish to "go green" to purchase a certain amount insurance from established bonding companies assuring shoppers that their information won't go awry. Bonding companies know how best to deal with this sort of risk; they would subject their client companies to audits, making sure servers were secure and weren't caching the wrong sort of data.
I'm a small businses owner, and guess what, I would have ZERO problems with this "green bar" policy.
Reason? I made damn sure that I'm incorporated as either a limited liability company (L.L.C) (www.3dprints4less.com - not up yet) or a S-corporation (www.seattleprototypes.com).
In this day and age of litigation, there is NO reason why if you're going into businses you should even consider sole proprietarship or general partnership agreement. IANAL, but go pick up any of the Nolo self-help books (recomemnded by lawyer friends) and they make it clear: The LLC and corp status is a bit more paperwork to upkeep, but offers MUCH better protection for the business owners. As a sole proprietarship, you are personally liable - down to your last nickel in your bank account, if your business incurs any liabilities. As a general partnership, you would be personally held liable for not only your business's liabilities, but the action of your partners well (if your partner racks up a debt, skips town, and the creditor have easy access to you - guess who's in the hot seat).
Not to mention, there's huge benifits you can get tax wise, from being a corporation or LLC. Corporate tax rates are a heck of a lot lower for one!
So, Aunt Joy making custom stockings, please, go pick up a self help book and get your business setup properly. This way some slimebag ambulance chaser can't sue you out of the house you're growing old in when some irresponsible parent let their kid chew off a bit of the stocking and the kid chokes on it.
-=- Terence
Sounds like an extortion racket to me. Another day, another Microsoft money making scheme all from the monopoly which Microsoft has on browsers which comes from their desktop OS monopoly.
And Bill Gates said there was no way to make money from security. Kind of lets you know why Microsoft eventually took security seriously.
So how long till the first hack that turns IE green?
Doh!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Well this is quite easy issue. For MSIE that is MS that says what site is OK or no. So there is convicted monopoly laveraging it's monopoly again trying to protect me (and by the way doing their own business with filters).
On the other side is Fx or Opera using third party blacklists (since they do browsers not other stuff like lists).
So the difference between MSIE+MS filters is that both come from the same monopoly. Fx or Opera use third party data (assuming that is not the same benefit for them) for filtering *bad* websites.
If the bar turns green for Sony, Amazon, Microsoft, LexusNexus, etc., then I know not to trust it. Once you try white, you take another bite.
That's how you make your buying decisions? For me when making a purchase I try to make some attempt to understand who I'm dealing with. This doesn't prevent that. It simply gives consumers one more tool. A device to allow them to allocate their attentions with more judiciously. Odds are if I'm dealing with dave53.com/cart.cgi? they've probably got something going on that isn't more convieniently and reliably available elsewhere. Maybe it's a prior relationship that they've carefully cultivated (something small business are very good at). The green-ness or white-ness of IE 7 won't be playing much of a role in my decision to go forward.
A device that automatically recommends people be more aware of who they're dealing with isn't a bad thing so long as it's accurate. It's not like banks serving small businesses can't get into the act offering services to vouch for their clients. The only people this can significantly hurt are business which were doomed to fail in anycase, and scammers. Both groups will probably only be impacted modestly in any event.
But is Microsoft the right one to enforce this? Even if sole proprietorship or general partnership might be inadvisable, it isn't illegal, and Microsoft or anyone else who is not the government has absolutely no jurisdiction and no mandate to make it so.
Something seems definitely out of bounds here...
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
So how much are you willing to pay to get your "green" cert from MS?
Can someone please explain why there aren't any third party blacklists to warn about phishing, like there are for spam filters? And if there are, where can we go to find them?
Well, as long as it works for you, I guess there's no problem.
as they demonstrate browsing the web with FireFox - Look, your honor, there are not green/white/yellow/red indicators!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
You win the Obvious Outcome Award, congratulations.
If you run a small business put a heading saying "Best viewed with Mozilla Firefox or Opera" and put "Get Firefox" and "Get Opera" buttons at the top. You can also add a bit text explaining that while the page will work in IE, it'll be improved by the other two.
You could always add a bit of blurb on how dodgy IE is if you want to rub salt in.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Lets not give small businesses a green bar. Of course small business generates 60+% of sales in the U. S. annually, but we don't care if we alienate them. Typical MS attitude. How they got so powerful and remain so clueless amazes me.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
RTFA.
You don't get a "green" cert. You get an EV-SSL, or, Extended Verification SSL. It's not like MS invented something horrible to extort money out of people. FYI, Firefox and Opera implements anti-phishing toolbars as well.
http://www.digicert.com/ev-ssl-certification.htm
And, guess what? cost of the EV-SSL, along with payments to banks, credit card processors, etc... are just a part of the cost of doing business.
-=- Terence
Microsoft isn't enforcing, or mandating anything. They're just making best-guess suggestions. At this point, anything like this will only help users. I agree with the parent. If you can't get your shit together enough to form a simple LLC, then I know that I wouldn't spend money with you.
Have you ever heard of a "close corporation" or "piercing the corporate veil?" Call up one of your lawyer friends and ask them how safe you really are...
Call up one of your lawyer friends and ask them how safe you really are...
Of course, the Cayman Islands, Jersey and Switzerland help a lot...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What, like the fact that it's a free market and whoever provides the 'safest' service has a leg up? (notice safest is in quotes) Seems pretty normal to me. What exactly is out of bounds about this? And, by out of bounds I hope you literally mean illegal, because everything else is considered in bounds. I personally don't even think it's unethical. It's just business.
And nobody is enforcing the creation of LLCs. Like someone else has said already, plenty of people will come to ignore the green bar altogether. And like another person said, how long do you think it will take for this to get completely hacked to allow phishing sites themselves to be green-bar? If anything, I predict it's a 'feature' that won't last very long. False senses of security are worse than having no sense of security. As soon as word gets out that the green bar was hacked it loses all credibility. You get right back to word-of-mouth and reviews/testimonials from trusted sources to get information about what websites are good and bad and you trust no others. It's that simple.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
In Capitalist West Microsoft talks of treated properly by algorithm. In Soviet Union Helsinki Accords also talks of rights for you!
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Look at the demographics. Who are these non-IE users. Well, many of them are mac users with enough expendable income to buy a mac. Many are *nix users who like do it yourself projects. The independent minded window user cannot be ignored either.
It seems to me that many firms go under because they are all chasing the same market, and certainly the unsophisticated IE user is a good mark that is easily hoodwinked, so who can blame those that wish to separate this pitiful creature from his or her money. But why ignore the 10-30% of the customers that will not be effected by the possibly biased MS certification process? To me, if a firm can get some good cred on the boards, I will order from them even if they do not have the rock lowest price. This is much more valuable to me that the firms ability to pay MS to put a pretty color on IE.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Hey mate, the world doesn't end at the US borders. In other parts of the world being a sole trader is common and accepted you need do nothing to "get in business", no forms to fill, nothing to apply for, you just wake up one morning and start "in business". It is a legal structure for a business, why treat it any less legitimately than another.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
If you can't get a certificate as a sole proprietorship, INCORPORATE! Problem solved.
Nobody is making anyone run their business as a sole proprietorship. And this day in this sue-happy age, there's plenty of other reasons incorporation is a good idea.
paintball
This depends on millions of new Intel machines being purchased after January 30. Febrary and March are the slowest period of the year for any non-essential item, as people are recovering from their holiday spending binges. Retail box sales of Vista will be all but limited to hard core gamers who want DirectX 10 a year before any games actually take advantage of it.
Ok, so IE7 is available on XP if you have SP2 installed. Still not staggering market share if you ask me.
The typical user doesn't notice anything above the top of the page, including the address bar, which is why there's an anti-phishing toolbar in the first place. They'll only notice the color change the first time it happens because a semi-helpful, condescending dialog box will pop up, which the user will check the "do not display again" box, click OK, and continue on their oblivious way without having read the actual message. After that, they'll probably never realize that it changes colors, and if they do, they'll momentarily wonder why, and continue on their merry way.
If something is routinely ignored, it's not useful because it's not being used. This is just one more thing that users will ignore while they submit their credit card info to http://amazon.com.hahawepwnyou.com/ to buy the latest American Idol greatest hits CD.
MS is widely considered to overdo it with the handholding of Windows users, making everything seem cozy and easy, and then they go and implement this toolbar which only gives the illusion of security, in the hopes that the ignorant masses they've created will pay attention to it.
Not gonna happen. Phishing will continue until people learn to use the Internet, jsut like spam will continue until SMTP is replaced.
so is this going to be a new profit center?
Only one response needed: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS01-017.mspx
This was a class-3 code-signing certificate from Verisign, giving all the correct details for Microsoft but the request was coming from a bunch of crackers. How long, then, until the phishers figure out how to get EV-SSL certificates of their own?
As a sole proprietarship, you are personally liable - down to your last nickel in your bank account, if your business incurs any liabilities.
As a sole proprietor, shouldn't you have enough control over your business to guard against this? And shouldn't you be moral enough to *want* to actually pay your liabilities when you do something wrong?
I've never understood why society allows LLCs and S-corporations to begin with- seems like a huge opportunity for con artists to take advantage of everybody else.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And we know that it's only a matter of time...
And the clincher is that the longer it takes to crack, the worse the ramifications are going to be when it happens.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I remember a few years ago, this company licensed a Haiku to put in the email headers. If the Haiku was there, you were automatically white listed in various spam filters. If you used the Haiku without paying the licensed, you could be sued not for spam, but for copyright infringement. I wonder if they still exist. Anyway, small businesses were priced out of the system. If you weren't sending 1,000,000 emails a month, don't bother calling them because you can't afford it. It seemed like such a stupid way to do business in an internet age. I'd pay .05 to make sure an email made it to a client. Oh well.
San Francisco Photographers
Is just in the way. what better way to kill them off then FUD them into bankruptcy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> There are about 20.6 million sole proprietorships and general partnerships in the U.S...
As if millions of small businesses owners suddenly cried out for their lawyers.
We have a Web site where we process orders for other companies. The pages are customized to our customers' look and feel and the credit cards are process against their accounts but all of the transactions take place on our server and use our certificate.
We have no problem getting the new certificates but what company name should appear in the bar? If we put our own name in, we will consfuse the end users who have never heard of us. If we want to use our customers company name, then they each have to get their own certificate and we have to assign separate IP addresses to each of our customers - at the moement we only need one IP.
What a nuisance.
And, guess what? cost of the EV-SSL, along with payments to banks, credit card processors, etc... are just a part of the cost of doing business.
And so we're back to "Nice site you have there, it'd be a shame if we told everyone who visited it you were a scammer." Of course, back when it was the mafia that charged to make sure nothing terrible happened, it was "just a part of the cost of doing business" too.
Have any other artificial barriers to business you'd like to construct while we're at it?
So, Aunt Joy making custom stockings, please, go pick up a self help book and get your business setup properly.
I'm sure Aunt Joy would love to, as would I, but neither of us can absorb the $500 filing fee. Stockings just ain't that profitable.
Taxes are a reason not to incorporate, at least in my state. A former boss incorporated for self-protection and the need to pay taxes quarterly nearly drove him under, since the computer-repair business can be rather seasonal.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
In other news, Microsoft announced new extentions to CSS which will, according to a company spokeman, allow site owners to enhance the user experience by customising the appearance of the IE7 web browser. "We want site owners to be able to make the browser match the site. For example, webmasters could cause the scroll bars to be a nice yellow or the address bar could be made green."
With all the frivolous litigation going on, about the only way to effectively and economically guard against it is to move offshore.
What?
As a sole proprietor, shouldn't you have enough control over your business to guard against this? And shouldn't you be moral enough to *want* to actually pay your liabilities when you do something wrong?
It's just a legal framework -- and no, you can never have "enough control" to guard against this. In a sole proprietorship, you are not legally distinct from your business, so any liabilities against the business can be taken out of your personal accounts. Assuming you are a legitimate business owner trying to make a profit (not just a shell corporation trying to avoid taxes), your biggest risk (I'm guessing) is from frivolous lawsuits. Somebody slips on the sidewalk in front of your storefront and sues your business for gajillion dollars. Assuming they win & your business can't pay up, it comes out of your personal savings account (or other assets). It's the same reason people carry umbrella liability insurance -- because we can't guard against the stupidity & greed of other people.
With all the frivolous litigation going on, about the only way to effectively and economically guard against it is to move offshore.
While I understand the basic concept- the frivolous litigation wouldn't be anything like what it is if businesses operated morally to begin with.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's just a legal framework -- and no, you can never have "enough control" to guard against this. In a sole proprietorship, you are not legally distinct from your business, so any liabilities against the business can be taken out of your personal accounts. Assuming you are a legitimate business owner trying to make a profit (not just a shell corporation trying to avoid taxes), your biggest risk (I'm guessing) is from frivolous lawsuits.
The reason frivolous lawsuits exist is because business owners attempt to skimp out on their responsibilities to begin with. If you acted morally towards the people coming on to your property there'd be no grounds for a lawsuit.
Somebody slips on the sidewalk in front of your storefront and sues your business for gajillion dollars.
At which point you take pictures of the salt you put down, and there's no way they can win in court. Decided to take a larger profit and forgo putting salt down? Well, that was YOUR mistake.
Assuming they win & your business can't pay up, it comes out of your personal savings account (or other assets).
As well it should, if you were guilty. That's called REPENTANCE for those of us who believe in forgiveness.
It's the same reason people carry umbrella liability insurance -- because we can't guard against the stupidity & greed of other people.
So why not just carry standard property owner liability insurance and be done with it?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Hey, where's the anti-phishing notification for Safari? Apple certainly does not care about their user base!
How about all color blind people? How will they perceive it? White is more clear than gray. Microsoft didn't think of that did they? Ok so maybe one can change the color that will be displayed.
BUT!
Placing meaning to color is VERY bad.
This will make simply generate a market for LLC's (read that LIMITED LIABILITY) who can act as clearinghouses for smaller businesses and also...yes, for would be phishers
Well, unfortunately, morality isn't very profitable these days. So don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The customers are every bit as corrupt as the businesses they buy from, and they're just as corrupt as the politicians they vote for.
What?
Actually up until 2007, at least in Texas, Nolo and your lawyer friends would have been wrong. In Texas the best way was to form was a Limited Partnership with a LLC as the General Partner. In a Limited Partnership only the General Partner is liable but the owners of the LLC's personal assets are protected. The benefit was that up until 2007 a partnership didn't have to pay any franchise taxes at all. You run all your business through the partnership and pay most out through disbursements while using the LLC for insurance and other things you need a corporation for.
But after years of threatening they finally closed the hole buy eliminating the franchise tax and instituted a tax that's applicable to partnerships.
Who is John Galt?
Small business should avoid to collect directly credit card information on their web site since they can't buy and manage the needed security measures to handle hackers.
Solution is to link the shopping cart with an external payment system like PayPal.
because we can't guard against the stupidity & greed of other people.
In the case of the USA, isn't this what the 2nd amendment is supposed to be for? You know, the right to keep and bear arms...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
If you ever want to take outside investment, you may want to consider C-corp instead. It'll save you a lot of hassle later.
It's late, and I just got back from drinking a lot of wine at my office Christmas party, so maybe I'm missing something, but bear with me and point it out politely, but as I see it we have the following:
1) MS do nothing about phishing, and are lambasted about a lack of security, not addressing the problem, etc
2) MS do something about phishing, and are lambasted about making it harder for unknown/sole traders to set up "trusted" websites
Do I have that right? MS do nothing, get slated, do something, get slated from the other direction? I mean, I hate M$ as much as the next frothing at the mouth Linux fanboi, but this really does strike me as a "can't win" situation for them...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
- SSL certs are signed by the US government for all biz with an EID
- SSL certs are signed (again) by the States the corp is in
- SSL certs (again; optionally) are signed by a 3rd party that is payed to go further than the government to ensure you are legit
- Governments make incorporation requirements on par with a typical cert authority. My state is at least as good as a CA.
Benefits:- Cert authorities(CA) can not extort money from us to avoid a little warning dialog
- CAs will have to do more since the gov does the basics
- Browsers can highlight government backed certs (little flag icons or green?)
- Consumers know governments more than they do some CA
- Government has reasonable information on the corp owners
- Consumers know the corp has to file taxes on regular basis (can't be totally fake)
- Consumers know what country or state the corp is involved with, allows them the freedom to support local business
- Costs little in taxes, much of the stuff is there on their computers already, they can offer the whole thing for free as part of the incorporation process.
- Digital certs are more secure than a paper document from the secretary of state
- Makes it easy to find the corp as well as file complaints with the secretary of state which incorporates them
- CAs are forced to improve their services, no need to regulate them
This is well within government bounds, which legally defines corporations, LLC, LLP (partnership,) regulates them, and taxes them. This would be a cheap additional business service that would ultimately protect citizens (which is a fundamental reason for government.)Perhaps the government learns and uses digital certs on legal documents like birth certificates? (nah, that would be too smart...BTW, I could fake my birth certificate with a copy machine)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I use Firefox
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The irony of all this, is that the only companies allowed to be deemed "trustworthy" are the corporate entities whose employees are shielded from personal liability.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
Registering as a corporation costs time and money. If you're just starting out, you may not have either to spare. Even $500 can be a big deal for some people, especially those who are young and in transition. Why should be impose one more artificial barrier to the success of the little guy?
That being said, I see a possible service in small business web hosting. For an extra $5/month, offer "green" certificates after talking to the business owner and looking at their site to see if it's legit.
-b.
for the security exploit that allows random phishing sites to turn the tool bar green.
Or worse, turns a legit site red, and then suggest a bogus site to visit instead.
Considering the MS security history, this is very plausible.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
BTDT, in the US. No big deal. The only forms I needed to fill out were tax returns and a sales tax license that allowed me to collect NY State sales tax on sales.
-b.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
the small one-person companies don't even qualify to get certified for the green status
Did you even read the article?
Small, one-person COMPANIES DO qualify, as long as they are incorporated!
It's PROPRIETORSHIPS that don't qualify.
See the difference?
Whether you can get a certificate or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF YOUR COMPANY!
This does not harm small business. It may harm unincorporated business. As I already suggested, the solution to this is to take an hour and incorporate.
paintball
BTW, keep in mind that plenty of the dodgier brick-and-mortar stores can gank your CC # as well. And if you've made purchases in 50 stores in the last month, no one's gonna know which store was responsible for it.
-b. -b.
I read an article in a local newspaper (some real small-town techie column) warning holiday shoppers to make sure whatever site you go to has a "little lock" (or https addres) to ensure that the site is secure.
I figure some people will belive the green bar just as much. Maybe thinking that other browsers are not as secure becoause they don't have a color bar like IE does.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Several CAs, including Digicert, are seeking to have the standard revised to include small businesses. I don't believe the CA/Browser Forum has finalized the standard yet, as there were some holdouts last I checked.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
i can't seem to get any e-commerce sites (including mircosoft's) to get a 'green bar' i have anti-phishing turned on. can anyone provide working examples?
You tried your best, & you failed miserably,
The lesson is:
Never Try
"IANAL, but go pick up any of the Nolo self-help books (recomemnded by lawyer friends) and they make it clear: The LLC and corp status is a bit more paperwork to upkeep, but offers MUCH better protection for the business owners."
I'll take you up on that, since I just happen to have Nolo's "Music Law: How to Run Your Band's Business (4th Ed.)", right here on my desk. On page 2/2 I find this:
"By default, most bands qualify as partnerships - an informal business entity that's easy to form and manage. Since your band is likely to be a partnership, most of this chapter is geared towards creating a band partnership agreement (a 'BPA')."
Huh, how about that.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Would something like google checkout or yahoo stores be the perfect solution? As long as it goes green when it comes time to enter financial information, I doubt anyone would care. I think microsoft is smart to not allow every little business to handle their own financial transactions. These are the stores where credit theft probably comes from.
While I understand the basic concept- the frivolous litigation wouldn't be anything like what it is if businesses operated morally to begin with.
Of course it would. Frivolous lawsuits have zero to do with how businesses operate and everything to do with individuals' greed.
If Firefox had a warning every time you looked at for-profit websites and refuse to accept fancy overpriced certificates, people would be doing the same thing with another browser.
$500 filing fee? Where are you at? In Utah it only costs $52 per LLC or Inc.
Yes I have. And after doing my own research, I'd still rather incorporate then be a sole proprietor.
A D70-4EFF-A3BF3EF03E96D60A/alpha/C/
t e_veil.html
And you obviously have no idea what a "close corporation" is. Here's a link: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/8E1B6E0E-
"Piercing the Corporate Veil" is not as easy as you imply. Don't mix your personal and business funds and treat your business like a business and not your "alter ego" and the person suing you won't be able to get to you personally.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/corpora
In the name of our country's movement towards Terror Marketing, they have built themselves a free referral network!
Coming Soon: Microsoft Stockings (MS).
"We want to give Christmas Media Users the widest holiday content experience. Children can download passcodes from our site that let them log into the scales built into their stockings. Thus, if they ask for a new PlayStationSure-Mini, which weighs 19.7 ounces, and their stocking only weighs 13.5 ounces, they will receive an early warning that their wishes were not met.
A Microsoft spokesman has said, "We want to embrace the holiday experience, and extend our goodwill towards all non-windows users. Since children clearly did not want the products from other manufacturers in their stockings, children are being given an early opportunity to confront their parents before the packaging is destroyed."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Anyone else see any resemblance to the general opinion of the internet 1.0 model about Christmas 1999? "22 year old CEO's" and so on. "Stocks to reach 15,000" "The age of unlimited progress!"
Then it all caved. It took something approaching 5 years to repair. Is that MS desktop monopoly STILL on complete and utter automatic pilot? Can Microsoft one day just say "ho hum, we're not even going to bother to make another OS ever again"?
Or can the illusion shatter in a tidal wave across the company if sufficient reports of complete disasters come in from Vista? I changed my sig to reflet my new direction. Where I go, someone has to follow.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Pre-RTFA, this articile passes the "Holy Jesus and Mohammad, Microsoft really IS fucking evil!" test...
All this "protection" in IE7 is there to try and limit which software you run. If they don't 'protect' you from their competitors who will? The Mafia? Triads?
After floating Sig V2.00 out to the general FOSS Community, it was determined that a comma was missing. Sig 2.01 is the result, which still makes this the direction I am going.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
so even though FF or whatever is safer than IE, you'll have TWO web browsers to keep up to date. Even if that's only one exploit (or a local exploit) for FF, you could get hosed because a non-critical (doesn't access other MS programs) IE error is also there.
http://www.verisign.com/ssl/buy-ssl-certificates/e xtended-validation-pro-ssl-certificates/index.html
Let's cast some light on this. How it will work (including screenshots)
See Appendix F of Verisign Certification Practice (PDF). I think the fuss is about the following statement "Verisign verifies that the Applicant is a legally recognized entity, in existence and validly formed (e.g., incorporated)". Possibly people have mis-read "e.g" as "i.e".
BTW, does anyone else keep reading the name of this technology as "EVIL SSL"? No? Just me then.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I love Slashdot I really do. Nowhere else do you get such a combination of highly-opinionated yet spectacularly ignorant people. Except perhaps Fox News. Let's get some facts on the table here.
/. where a$$hole opinions are the only condition of entry.
1. This is not a Microsoft initiative
2. This is about the Extended Validation Certificate programme which involves a large number of organisations, most of whom are CAs.
3. The EVC is the initiative of the CA/Browser Forumhttp://www.cabforum.org/
4. The point of EVC is to raise the game of the CAs in terms of actually checking who has bought an SSL certificate from them, which is what should have been the case when SSL was invented but which market forces ensured did not happen.
5. This is not just about IE7. Firefox, Opera and other browsers will also process EVCs and many may use the green bar. IE7 is likely to be the first browser to use them, but it will not be the last.
A teeny tiny bit of research by any half-normal human would have revealed the above. But nooooo, this is
As a case in point I just loved killjoe's "contribution", where he admitted hacking someone else's PC to get a crappy unsigned app running on it. If some moron did that to my PC he would get a screwdriver in the eyes.
It is bad enough that IE 7 gives such dire warnings when a certificate isn't signed.
I can live with the firefox warning, and if IE didn't exist I probably wouldn't bother getting signed,
you could ask customers to either trust your company, or not.
Not an option anymore since IE 7 gives them a full page "OMG HaX0rs in teh y0u Brow3zers". That is going to put off most IE users straight away.
Thanks Microsoft. We need to get customers used to the new definition of trust. Yes, that's right folks, trust CAN be bought.
Slashdot has got a lot of green bars, safest place on the internet. Just the IT section is a bit brownish.
We are the people our parents warned us about.
I have a small sole proprietorship in Canda, and this is going to be a huge problem for me. I only do a few thousand dollars of sales per year (I have a day job), so paying for one of the 'green' certificates is WAY out of my budget. In addition my clients have ecomm websites and no money for these certs.
Now what? If I'm using a shared certificate is it going to show as yellow or red for me? This doesn't only apply to ecomm sites but also sites with a secure area like a user admin.
What a big pisser on the little guy. I don't quite understand why it is Microsoft's problem to protect the idots who don't realize they are at amason.com instead of amazon.com or whatever. Microsoft is not responsible for phishing and the hazards of the internet. Cars don't prevent me from exceeding the speed limit.
Really... what IS wrong with the 3rd party lists of known phishing sites? Why does MS have to do things in a completely idiotic pain in the ass way every time? Thanks for crapping on the little guy. I guess I'll ratchet up my get Firefox, burn IE campaign. Damn it.
Most of all, this just makes me frustrated and upset. I won't be using IE7 or developing websites for it. Screw them.
And the $1000 needed for the EV SSL cert might be a quarter of her yearly sales... so, not it's not that simple.
Every time I see an article like this, it reminds of the small child that burns his hand on the stove, cries, and then tries it again 5 minutes later. If you don't like the way Microsoft is making the consumer bend to their will, STOP using their products. If you're foolish enough to be supporting Microsoft's marketing tactics by buying and using their products, there is nothing anyone can do to help you. If you value choice and alternative, you should start thinking about where your future choices are going to come from in the next few years. It's really going to be interesting when Microsoft's DRM is in full swing and everyone's word DOCs are locked up in some format that Microsoft itself can't even get right, and it will be illegal to try and figure out a solution.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
There will be 40-50 megawebsites who proudly call themselves MS Antiphishing Certified. They'll have a little logo. It's all a crossbranding strategy. And everyone else will happily stumble along as they do today.
Let's see the likely candidates:
Wal*Mart
Target
Amazon
Barnes and Noble
Petsmart
Victoria's Secret
Abercrombie and Fitch
Dell
and so on.....
None of the financial companies will go for this nor will TicketMaster, etc.
A while a go I emailed MS about the warning that pops up for shared certificates. They don't mention the address bar coloring, but since we're on the topic, here's what they said:
---------
[ME]--
The problem with "shared" SSL certificates is that they're pretty much "useless" to begin with. Certificates are issued to map a real-world site owner to a hostname and a private key used when communicating with that hostname. When the hostname doesn't match the website, there's no reason for the user to believe that certificate is presenting the private key of the site owner.
All modern browsers warn the user of this discrepancy, and in the face of one-click attack toolkits which intercept and resign SSL connections, IE7's Certificate Error page was designed to inform the users of the significant risks they face when interacting with such sites.
There are a number of options to correctly use SSL, ranging from purchasing individual certificates (available for as little as $18/year), wildcard certificates (e.g. using a *.example.com certificate to secure shopa.example.com & shopb.example.com) or using a shared server with a single hostname and corresponding digital certificate (partnersales.onlinemall.com).
Best wishes,
Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Internet Explorer Trust & Networking
-----Original Message-----
From: [me]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:27 AM
To: IE External Feedback
Subject: IE7 effectively makes shared ssl certificates useless.
Hello,
Many of my clients own ecommerce sites that barely earn only a small profit. They
cannot afford personal ssl certificates for their websites. My hosting
provider, like many others provides a shared certificate that can be used.
However, IE7 is now going to present a big, intimidating warning page that
effectively scares visitors away from a site. Even though a shared cert
provides just as much encryption protetection for their credit card data.
IE6 presents a less-frightening dialog box warning that the domain of the
site does not match the domain of the cert. This was fine. But, now with the
IE7 warning page, I can forsee that most visitors will be scared away.
On behalf of the many thousands of ecommerce site operators that use shared
certificates because it's all we can afford, I strongly believe that many website owners
will want or need you to replace the big scary warning page with a dialog box warning or
perhaps a banner at the top of the page. I also ask you to include in your
warning, a clear statement that certificates that do not match the domain,
or do not come from a certifying authority, do still provide encryption
protection of credit card and sensitive data. Perhaps a big warning is more
appropriate for sites that ask for credit card data but do not use any SSL
encryption.
I'm sure that Thawte and Verisign are seeing $$s at this IE7 "feature".
~[me]
The phishing thing is just tacked on to cloud the issue. The real issue is that the big cert authorities are upset at the cheap certificate companies cropping up and cutting into their huge profit margins so they invent a super duper secure server certificate so that they can make everyone think that actually means something and keep the other certificate authorities out of the picture. It is just a reason to charge more money and businesses will have to purchase the new certificates or risk being non-green (that is just wrong in so many ways). It is all a scam... The idea that some super verified certificate makes sites more secure is rediculous. Even if you use a cheap $15 cert or this expensive version really doesn't matter... Security layers are defined my the business not by some magical certificate. That is the way I see it anyway. The color should only reflect phishing status.
I'm using IE7 running on windows 2003 server, loading https://www.amazon.com/ and it only gets a white bar.
Did Amazon not pay the MS tax?
and raise you another.... until they offer Microsoft Stores with Microsoft Payments as a way to get greenlisted.
Now why do they call it a greenlist, hmmm....
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think that you and the rest of us are using different working definitions for the word "frivolous."
I'm using the definition that http://www.stellaawards.com/ uses. A case where, if both parties were acting reasonably, could easily be settled out of court instead of wasting taxpayer money to try the case. 9 times out of 10 the businesses do indeed win such cases- but if they had acted MORALLY instead of PROFITABLY in the same situation, then no lawyer in the world would have filed a lawsuit to begin with. These lawsuits get filed because there is a 10% chance of actual wrongdoing on the part of the business- if there were no chance of wining, there'd be no settlement to take legal fees out of.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I bet that if you run your web server on a MS platform with licensing purchased from MS you can get the cert no matter what.
They can do this and people will use it. The only thing we can do is try to figure out an alternative or a better mouse trap
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
...makes me wonder what business outside the US have to do to hold a valid certificate to get the "green light"
Incorporating in my case (1-person business) would mean hiring a lawyer and accountant to file the annual state forms, draw up the stock agreement, and file the taxes in return for a few hundred dollars in tax savings and pretty much no liability protection.
In my case there wasn't much difference either way in terms of operating expenses or tax advantages--it was all a wash, but I incorporated anyways because I figured it put me in a better position should my revenues grow or I was to hire full-time employees.
Anyways, I incorporated in Canada and doing so did NOT require me to hire a lawyer OR an accountant (though you can certainly do so if you want the help--it often is a good idea especially if you are already an established sole proprietor or partnership). The annual corporate return is no more complicated than my personal income taxes (and is actually simpler than my personal taxes have been in some years)--and I've always done my own taxes. Did you really NEED a lawyer and accountant to incorporate a 1-person business in your state or is the paperwork really that complex? I thought the US had LESS red tape than Canada--guess that is a bit of a stereotype. The incorporation forms can be bought at a registry office where I'm at and filing an annual return is the same cost as renewing the registration of your personal vehicle (IIRC--all of these things are done at "authorised registry agencies" where I live--there is no separate "DMV" and you go to the same place to file corporate returns, register vehicles, get drivers licences and ID, marriage licenses, etc).
My first impression was like the grandparent post--basically "it's a bit of a pain in the arse, but not a REAL big deal, so just incorporate and you'll be fine". Well, then I read some of the replies here and really READ the effin' article. It looks like in many foreign countries it is a much bigger hassle and large expense to incorporate (1000s of euros? need a board of 5 directors or more? Seems like overkill bureaucracy to me...). Then in the article they talk about LLCs and S and C and other American-only oddities. These corporate structures/terminologies do not apply in Canada. We have provincial and federal incorporation and different tax rates based on the size/income of the corporation (there is not need to be a special type of corporation to get a lower small-business tax rate). However, Canada also has co-operatives covered under the incorporation act as legal entities distinct from normal corporations that have no exact analogue to a type of corporation in the US. Canadian business trusts are also different than those in the US (Canadian business trusts are more like the way they were in the US when Standard Oil used them as a vehicle to propel themselves to monopoly status--though the taxation advantages are being phased out over the next few years which will bring their status more into line with how they are treated in the US).
Anyways, the unique Canadian situation means that some VERY big, established and/or well-regarded businesses are NOT actually corporations (or LLCs or whatever else) as described in the article. Do these businesses have to establish corporations to get the enhanced certificates? Are these certificates only available from Microsoft (it says these are based on a standard devised by an 18-member consortium so maybe not)? To foreign businesses have to incorporate in the US? THAT would be quite a higher hurdle for smaller, foreign businesses with an established online presence in foreign markets.
I think it'll take awhile to sort out--longer than it will to even see Vista and IE7 to become prominent. So, for a long time all users will see are white bars, with a smattering of yellow and red alerts, and a few green bars--mostly on Microsoft sites or close MS affiliates, or REALLY major sites like ebay or Amazon. So, no I don't think users are stupid enou
Of course it would. Frivolous lawsuits have zero to do with how businesses operate and everything to do with individuals' greed.
Not entirely- 10% of so-called frivolous lawsuits actually have enough merit to win large awards. The reason they win such awards is because the business did something wrong- there was indeed forseeable harm. Because of that one-in-ten chance, the free market dictates that other gamblers will take the chance- and will find lawyers who will support them. But when a business takes OBVIOUS measures, such as salting icy sidewalks and putting up stupid signs like "Wildlife exists in outdoor malls", then there's no chance of winning a lawsuit, and thus, one never gets filed.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
To those of you calling for class action lawsuits against MS, try this on for size:
If I put up my own online shopping site, with a homebrewed SSL certificate, Firefox will put up a message box to the user warning that my site's SSL certificate isn't authorized by a recognized certificate authority (e.g. Verisign) (because the root cert isn't installed on the local computer). Should I then be able to sue Firefox for not treating my site the same that it does for shopping sites with SSL certs authorized by recognized authorities?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I don't think anyone would disagree that anti-spam and anti-phishing technologies are a good thing, but Microsoft seems content to wage a scorched-earth battle over the backs of small businesses and startup websites while they tweak the technology.
I don't see this Anti-Phishing as the only thing a user online should be concerned about. I believe if MS just handles this one area, many will fall victim to the many other type scams online. The SiteAdvisor is the one addon for browsers that I have been endorcing for some time now. They do more than accept a little pay, etc and clear your name. They offer the service to all users, and they also are not biased of any type website online. As long as you pass their test of users, and your content passes inspection you then get the green. This test is performed many times, not just one time.
The other thing that bothers me, is that websites come and go on a regular basis. If MS gives a website the green light do they have a protection in place in case the domain is dropped, and a person manages to pick up that domain and use it to their advantage?
I also feel that MS plan is biased against a lot of legit businesses online. Their new tool proves it. I think their idea sucks.
I doubt she'll be hurt. I own 3 small businesses. Most of my friends also own businesses. I don't know anybody who is rushing out to pay for one of these "make yourself green" certificates. Hell, I hear people grousing all the time about how much ordinary, no-human-intervention-required SSL certs cost. In small business, every dollar counts (why do you think Auntie Treestocking isn't even incorporated? Because that costs money), and did you look at how much these EV certs cost?
They cost $1299.00 per year. How much profit do you really think Pippy Longstocking is making from her little business? Look at her site. She does sales through via phone, a shared-SSL ecommerce package, and an eBay store. In other words, she didn't even spring for her own $20 SSL cert. Do you really think she's going to drop $1300 just so she can be "green"? Why not just direct all visitors to her eBay store? You know that they're going to be green.
Seriously, I don't think many small businesses are going to be hurt by this.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I'm not impressed. Did you even look at how much these certs cost? They cost $1300.00 per year.
If you are so eager to pay $1300/yr for an SSL cert, certainly you can handle the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Are you trying to tell me that she can't afford the $60/yr to have a real, incorporated business, but she's just chomping at the bit to shell out $1300.00 per year just to be "green"?
Yeah, whatever.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Unless you commit fraud or don't maintain adequate insurance.
Incorporating is not a license to screw people with immunity.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
See definition of frivolous.
See definition of Propaganda.
How is the sidewalk in front of a business the responsibility of its (the business's) owner? He doesn't own it.
Actually, your property line runs right out to the center of the street. The city has used the law of eminent domain to create a right of way- but in many cases you're responsible for maintainance of that right of way.
Why are we mixing liability with morals here? Not every tort is a sin. Are you a lawyer?
Worse, I'm a Catholic. Anything that harms the relationship between individuals in a community is a sin. Torts definately fall into that category. So I'll admit to using a different defintion of SIN than most would. It's part of my problem with the whole idea of capitalism in the end- profit cannot be separated from corruption very easily, and in some cases, simply can't be separated at all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I have no problem with whitelisting, but you have to think about who is doing it. Whose judgement are you really deferring to?
Someone the user didn't select, that's who. Someone pretty fucking mysterious and unaccountable, actually.
X.509 needs to go away. Build the cert system upon an OpenPGP web of trust, and a visible trust-meter actually turns into a pretty good idea, since it will actually mean something. Present information to the user, instead of arbitrarily-derived noise.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You see a hottie flash her green underwear or green dyed bush and you don't mak eyour move, well they have programs that will get you the skills to bag gropceries and tie your shoes.
WHITE means good! For example. When the Lone Ranger says, 'That was might white of the redskin' he is telling us that the red indian did something mighty GOOD.
Things me be different on Mars. DOOD! Get a CLUE! This is EARTH and when on Earth you best do what the earthhlings do.
GREEN = GO
WHITE = GOOD
I have a site online that has a guestbook and that page was flagged a phishing risk by IE7 beta. I wrote the email address that IE gave and that site was cleared in a couple days...Problem was, I was using that guestbook code in 8 other sites, all personal or small biz. This is a feature that might need to be pulled until it can be tested a little more against non-corporate sites.
The whole idea behind the legal system today is it is a way for a small percentage of people to get very, very rich without working hard at all.
Taking the sidewalk example, if the business does not put salt or other material down, some cities give you a pass because snow is an "act of God". However, someone that slips can still sue in spite of this because a jury may be swayed by it being clearly negligence.
So you put salt down. Now it is no longer an act of God but your own fault if someone slips. They can sue because you put salt down and it was like walking on marbles. Any smart lawyer is going to be able to at least get a sizable settlement out of that.
If you are injured or can fake an injury and go to some quack that will write it up as a permanent disability, you have hit the jackpot. You can get government assistance which can then be used to sway the jury that you are permanently disabled. The business in question will want to settle quickly because they don't need the publicity. Imagine a WalMart with a truck out in front with a sign saying how this person can never work again because of heartless and cruel WalMart. They will pay plently to keep that from happening.
I don't see any morality or responsibility here. The whole concept is that today there are plenty of people that feel entitled to take whatever they can get. And there are lawyers and insurance companies that are ready to help them out. And, the people that serve on juries want to help out their fellow man and step on those evil corporations.
The odds today are significantly better than the lottery. You need a business that can't afford to fight or can't afford to take the publicity. Or, an insurance company that knows what the fraud is worth vs. what settlement can be done. It is cheaper just to settle than fight even when the settlement is $300,000.
So, have you thought about playing the insurance lottery today? Trust me, people in your neighborhood have and about the only way to be safe from this is either (a) plenty of insurance or (b) zero assets.
So, have you thought about playing the insurance lottery today? Trust me, people in your neighborhood have and about the only way to be safe from this is either (a) plenty of insurance or (b) zero assets.
I do both. I keep my assets low, and my insurance high.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And I thought this was the whole point behind SSL Certificates and Seals of Approval? If only the "Web of Trust" had spread like the viruses, scams, spam and other nasties on the net.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Are you saying that the idea of a frivolous lawsuit is a myth or that governmentally or politically affiliated persons file them as disinformation?
I should clarify that I can envision a lawsuit as described above as being winnable. It's not an entirely frivolous suit either, as it would likely achieve the end of forcing the business owner to put down the sand in the first place. I do find it an unfair lawsuit, as failing to place sand does not rise to the level of negligence, unless there's a law stating that all business owners must salt the sidewalk when it snows.
Guilt is not legally the same as liability. Liability does not imply moral culpability. Perhaps if civil courts were run by the Vatican, then this would be true from your perspective. I agree with you on the wrongness of harming community relationships. Fighting a lawsuit harms both the plaintiff and the defendant, and rarely are these settled in a way that leaves amicable relationships intact. What communities need is a bit more forgiveness, and a lot less incentive for lawyers and plaintiffs to file lawsuits except as a last resort.
Are you saying that the idea of a frivolous lawsuit is a myth or that governmentally or politically affiliated persons file them as disinformation?
Both. Frivolous lawsuits are rarely either frivolous or actually about the lawsuit- what they're really about is damaged communities.
I should clarify that I can envision a lawsuit as described above as being winnable. It's not an entirely frivolous suit either, as it would likely achieve the end of forcing the business owner to put down the sand in the first place. I do find it an unfair lawsuit, as failing to place sand does not rise to the level of negligence, unless there's a law stating that all business owners must salt the sidewalk when it snows.
I took it as such enough that as a homeowner, I always salt the sidewalk in front of my house when it is icy/snowy. Why should a business follow different rules than a homeowner?
Guilt is not legally the same as liability. Liability does not imply moral culpability. Perhaps if civil courts were run by the Vatican, then this would be true from your perspective. I agree with you on the wrongness of harming community relationships. Fighting a lawsuit harms both the plaintiff and the defendant, and rarely are these settled in a way that leaves amicable relationships intact. What communities need is a bit more forgiveness, and a lot less incentive for lawyers and plaintiffs to file lawsuits except as a last resort.
Totally agreed there. Which leads to one of my journals- on guilt not being permanent.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So what if they get the green light? A simple - "Report this website" click just wipes it out.
Sure, switch to Firefox, it solves all of life's problems. Riiight.... You do realize they have an anti-phishing tool as well? You can choose from an unknown Firefox blacklist or Google's anti-phishing blacklist. You won't save yourself any trouble.
Unlike Firefox, IE7 allows you to report any website on the internet you think is a forgery. Go pay for your certificate, just takes a few people to turn that address to yellow then to red.
Don't kid yourself. Firefox still has no support for ActiveX and ASP and therefore can never be a replacement browser for IE. It's still that nice 'alternative' browser for those users not looking at easily upgrading software on their computer.