On Fri, June 3, 2005 10:53, Dan Langille said: > On 3 Jun 2005 at 10:30, Rod Giffin wrote: > >> On Fri, June 3, 2005 10:25, Dan Langille said: >> > On 3 Jun 2005 at 10:20, Bill Strosberg wrote: >> >> CACert is no better or worse than anyone else in the business. My >> >> position is that the whole on-line trust model is broken. >> >> Profit!-motivated organizations have no place in a trustworthy >> >> system. Principles are always soluable in cash. >> > >> > CACert is not a company. It's not involved in cash. There's no >> > profit. I don't see how your comments relate to my question. >> >> According to their website, CACert is indeed a company >> (not-for-profit, asking for donations). They identify themselves as >> CACert Inc. http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=13 > > So you are equating that company, which I didn't notice before, with > the CACert community and project? No, I'm just pointing out that it's a company, which would tend to be a good thing for liability reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with Bill's sentiment that the whole on-line trust model is broken, although I think there are things other than cash that are corrosive to principles. The cash model at least lets me establish the expectation of service. Rod.