Maybe you are right, and even they don’t write so often that they are “independent”. But why should someone rely on them in Melih’s logic…
I could easily speculate, but I’m fairly sure that you don’t really want me to. 
SLE:
- Where is the evidence to make these test reliable? They are not certified, they are not audited they are not validated…
- Yes you have to tell the public that these tests are paid (please refer to FCC guidelines previously mentioned)
3)“independent” is a word used and clearly articulated by FCC guidelines as it is frequently used to mislead public as in AV-Comparatives case. It is NOT a nonsense word, its a word used to deceive public to make them think the tests are “independent”. (with all due respect i don’t believe you are understanding the legal implications here).
Please read my previous posts to see what I want from a testing organisation. Your arguments are re-hashing the stuff already discussed, pls read the previous posts. thank you.
We didn’t know what went on behind the closed doors until we engaged them. We thought they were an open, honest organisation. We paid them money to see how they worked. Then they tried to muzzle us via confidentiality clauses.
Once they threatened with the release the confidentiality (because they didn’t like that I had an opinion), that gave us an opportunity to reveal.
hope this clarifies.
Melih, no about legal implications I can’t speak.
But I find it very confusing that you never really answer any of my questions. Your only reaction is to ask requestions… and saying the same all the time. Nothing new and nothing special. Why?
So in short: You have no real claim for unreliable testing - i have no for reliable testing. What now - status quo?
They always refer to the methodology where it’s clear written down. If some people not read everything and so in your posts read the first time that AV-C gets money form vendors - thats not AV-Cs problem. Also I’m not sure if the guidelines are obligating to an austrian NGO. I’m not a lawyer.
In my above post I wrote clearly a few points from which tests DEPEND. Even if they are audited and validated. So for me - word playing.
And about the 50k: IMO it would be unethical for AV-C to task an auditor who is payed by one single third vendor. That should be easy to understand or?
1)you started answering my questions with questions…so pls don’t complain when you get a taste of your own medicine
2)Referring to methodology or complying with it are 2 different things…
3)I don’t believe you understand the role of an “auditor” from a top 5 company.
Did you see the FCC rule where it clearly states that testing organisation must be transparent to public about their financial relationship?
So look at post 29 (my very first) - clear questions. (If you have shown us the whole story, what is ethical on your behaviour etc. ) Then look at your post 30 - where are the answers? So - say the truth - who startet? In the same manner you can look at all following posts.
3)I don't believe you understand the role of an "auditor" from a top 5 company.It's better they don't need a sponsor for that. Point. If you want spent that money anyway: Donate it, if they get succesfully audited.
Did you see the FCC rule where it clearly states that testing organisation must be transparent to public about their financial relationship?First: Now defining transparency? I said: I find it transparent if I can find it on homepage if I search it. I don't need it in large letters in every report. Second: Austrian NGO.
we are not talking about what “transparency” or “independent” mean to SLE but in legal terms as defined by FCC.
Once you have read it, analysed what AV-comparatives does that breaches FCC regulation, then we can continue our discussion, until there there is no framework for a discussion I am afraid and AV-Comparatives continue to mislead public by calling themselves independent while not auditing and validating their tests.
So would you please be so nice to show me, as a non lawyer, the line in FCC that makes clear the FCC is relevant for an Austrian NGO, for AV-C, at all.
My conclusion is: You have only words, claims, speculations and suggestions about AV-C.
You never answered any question and so my own speculation is, that all the mails and NDA parts you have shown are only excerpts! You only showed a short part from the story, only the part that fits for you … so I speculate you are misleading public !!
Nevertheless I understand that you don’t answer those things in public, but now interested readers can clearly see that there seems to be nothing more than words from the Comodo CEO. 
Oh dear SLE. Actually I think interested readers can see that you don’t really have a clue what you’re arguing about. What you posted about auditors was so far beyond wrong, I actually cringed when I read it.
1)ignorance is not an excuse to break the law!
2)https://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/avcomparativesorg-bullying-censorship-and-financial-dealscontinued-t78934.0.html;msg565333#msg565333 (its the FCC regulation)
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
Its pretty easy to understand I think 
The worst part is, AV-Comparatives know all this (they read all these on our forums), yet they continue to claim to be “independent” and continue to mislead the public…thats unethical!
So what was wrong? I only posted that I find it ok if AV-C didn’t want Comodo to pay the auditors and if validated or not - tests still depend from some things. So whats wrong about it? Clear examples please.
__
At Melih: Again. It never was a secret, it’s written in methodology so it’s at least a form of a disclosure 8even if not full).
But my conclusion seems to be valid.
My apologises.
The notion that external auditors (no matter who paid for or appointed them, be it a 3rd party, government or a court of law) could be in some way “unethical” is… well… laughable (in that nervous type of way, as you look around to make sure there are no auditors present). Asking if external auditors are completely independent, is a bit like inquiring if the Pope is Catholic (or if he wears red socks).
No need, Melih has already answered this. Referencing/using a methodology and compliance of that very same methodology are two different things. So, I believe your conclusion is not necessarily valid.
I never said that the auditor is unethical, unethical (in discussed logic of the conflict) for AV-C would IMO be to let one third company pay him. That are totally different things. Of course I never meant that this would have any influence on the auditors work. But the next one can come: Comodo ones payed the auditor and now you prefer them… not true - but it would be partly the same argumentation as we see here.
So, I believe your conclusion is not necessarily valid.- Valid seems to be that Melih showed only that part of all that he wanted us to see. Complete/Imcomplete/Misleading? We can't know - it's a question of trust. - Valid is that many questions are unanswered. - Valid is that the fact that AV-C takes money from vendors is nothing new. - Valid is that nobody has shown that the fact that companies pay has any influence on test results. Speculation.
Auditors: You’re just being silly now. It is not relevant to external auditors who pays the bill, only what they are auditing. Other companies (any company) will not care who paid the auditors (even if it was Comodo). The auditors credentials would stand on their own and their findings accepted on that basis as fact. As I indicated previously, even Governments and the courts appoint and use Auditors in exactly the same way. Even the police and courts themselves suffer enjoy audits.
I really doesn’t matter how many times you say valid, it will not make any of our assertions, assumptions and speculation any more or less valid. Now, if an external audit says “valid” then it is so and will be accepted as such. That’s the point.
Again, I never said that it is relevant for auditors. But if AV-C means they need no sponsor for that, and not Comodo - there is nothing bad at all.
Now you’re funny. I think we need no external audit to see what I notivced in my sentences in that context.
Ok - but I really think we are at the end of discussion here. Melih gives no real and further anwers - I have to accept, if I like it or not.
No indeed…
I particularly liked the first and second ones. BTW aren’t the second and the forth the same? No audit is required here to see where you’re coming from… it’s fairly transparent. :a0
It’s not at question of liking - did you never asked if those things are complete or contain all relevant things?
I asked those question thatswhy “seems to be…” - the other 3 points are clear for me.
€: See clockwords next post, strange indeed.
Why? The fourth was about one specific question, the second included others that I arised in that thread.
Yes? From Germany. Or what else will you mandate? The same game that w-e-v wanted to play at the beginning? Not again.
One question, as you spoke about questions:
What was written under the post link 3 in the email from av-c? Its one of the links that were given as examples about what av-c wants to discuss with comodo, before they would make a “public” statement, like Melih did, otherwise.
Not only that we never saw the mentioned page behind that link, now this post link 3 was erased from the “av-c email” reproduction in Melihs blog.
Well, you’re using “valid” is certain odd way (possibly a language issue?). But, a valid uncertainty? It doesn’t make much sense in this context.
Second: There are unanswered questions.
Fourth: Queried and no response (ie. an unanswered question).
Yes, sure. But, I’m not sure what Germany has to do with it… or w-e-v. In any event, you’re clearly siding with AV-C and always have been. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that your Valid list has been written in certain, very telling, way. Allow me to modify it for you to demonstrate what I mean (still using Valid, which should possibly be “fact”)…
- Valid AV-C hasn’t contradicted Comodo’s evidence. Suspicious/odd. Issue of trust.
- Valid is that many questions are unanswered. [this doesn’t need modification]
- Valid is that the fact that AV-C gags vendors is nothing new.
- Valid is no evidence has been presented by AV-C to demonstrate their independence.