Ok if my tip was unwise, then i am sorry! I wanted only help, cause you both wants answers. - Answers that no one can give here till now. So maybe it will easier to contact AVC for getting your answers. I repeat, if this unwise, then i am sorry.
That was only my opinion how i would do it to get my answer. I wanted not push someone for doing it!
But i think i will go back to topic and only post again if i have more questions! - and then i will ask Melih. - Like i ask IBK from AVC for questions about AVC
Ok, in this post, i will only use the text of 255.5 , to show that there is the exception to your citation part, which fits to a testing organisation, given right as next sentence! It proceeds THEN to make clear what your citation part was containing.
The color red is the exception, the color black is what you citated and what will be specified further AFTER the exception.
255.5 partially recapitulated:
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)
An example of a connection that is ordinarily expected by viewers and need not be disclosed is the payment or promise of payment to an endorser who is an expert or well known personality,
must be fully disclosed.
However, when the endorser is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation.
In the specification of what should be disclosured because no one would expect it, there isnt the word expert anymore.
CEO Melih answers to my question: How often Comodo took part in AV-C Tests (after asking them quite often).
but there we can read: "Comodo paid us several times for conducting static detection tests of their software, and although they promised users in their forums that they will publish the results, they never did "
So, ok. Was Melih not willing to give details - or he as CEO knows not exactly that fact?
And that:
They donât deny it, but clearly deny that it has any influence on the results. Huge difference.
And Melih himself said in this thread that he has no proof for that influence.
Why is this sentence then relevant?
âWhen there exists a connection between the endorser [SINGULAR] and the seller [SINGULAR] of the advertised productââŚ
Where is the plural? Doesnt fit to an organisation then also. No?
Sorry, but lol
I guess that depends on what you think a CEO is. But, itâs clearly possible that a CEOâs compnay could engage another company/organisation to do all sorts of thing without the CEOâs explicit knowledge. Thatâs what other executives are for⌠either that or the CEO doesnât sleep and has a very short life span.
The absence of something does not make it so, in either direction. Thatâs what an audit is for and thatâs what it would determine.
Melih, then i must assume that are many of your posts before are misleading too! How often i must asking again and again for get the clear answer? how often SLE must ask again and again for a clear answer? how often clockwork must ask again and again for a clear answer? Sometimes it is not easy to understand you! Sure, maybe its only a language problem! But Maybe it is the same with AVC. If you think they spread misleading informations - yes, maybe! But then ask not here in your corner for it only. Ask Them directly per email for get their answer!
It is easy to say they spread misleading information - but look of the worstcase - what is if many people would say to you, you spread misleading informations? No one say this, but the truth is sometimes i must ask more times for understanding all what you want! And not all of your or comodos informations are clear! cause if all is clear, then would not so many people ask you again and again! You not want they talk with you directly? like i do and sle do and clockwork do with you? So, talk not not only here in your corner about AVC - Talk to them and with them if you want answers!
The FTC are specifically talking about public figures (actors, pop stars, sport stars, etcâŚ) endorsing products/services here. Both the âsellerâ and âendorserâ can be either plural or singular depending on the context. For example, in the Melih-snipped context the âendorserâ is an âexpertâ (singular) or public figure/personality (singular). Do you see?
Why indeed? When you can get sufficiently misled for free! ;D
âMud Slinging.
Continually expound unanswered questions, the ones that nobody else âdaresâ to ask. An argument from silence is a useful method of insinuating dishonorable motives. Itâs weakness is that there is no evidence to support any such assertion. However itâs strength is that the criticised party will be caught unawares by this tactic and not have a pre-prepared defense.â
I know of 1 test result that i made availableâŚComodo employs around 800 people and many more as consultants/outsourced providers, and I do not know every single detail about what every employee does nor should the CEOs are expected to know all these details. I trust my employees to do their job. If AVC had the ability to test the product we would have published the results, AVC admitted that they couldnât test it. Again you are going back to your question that I answered which about âon demandâ tests and why I think they are misleading. If you are going to have a decent discussion, then i am all for it, but if you are asking the same question that you got answer to, then this is trolling.
coming back to the point again you never answered and in the sipirit of decent discussion i think you should answer as I tried to accommodate your answers: There is no proof that AV-Comparatives tests are validated. Do you have any proof? Now that there is enough question marks about their conduct its fair to ask proof as trust has gone.
AVC should stop calling themselves independent and clearly mark these tests as paid tests, donât you agree?
PS: We are happy for AVC to reveal all the info they have with Comodo. Let the public be the judge.
If there was an individual called âav-câ and they were not a registered entity (I believe that always requires more than one person), then yes. All would be fine. But, he/she would probably really hate their parents.
And thatâs probably why Melih snipped that bit off. There never was a problem until you thought you had found a problem, then there was a problem. Ooo⌠and with all those problems, I feel a another quotation is required⌠;D
The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem.
About forums:
If theres a controversal discussion able to going on in a forum, doesnt mean that there is more or less controversion about the thematic than somewhere else.
Look at this simulation of a forum, where its allways un-controversalâŚ
Dont make fun of my attempts to base what i say with quotations. Thats contraproductive.
Btw, my red color quotation was made while you answered. And it made clear what i tried to tell. It was an answer to Melih, because he said there was nothing missing. I made it red to show, that there is an exception following. Legit. Opened for discussion.
I could use that âlaughing from aboveâ tone too, kail. Its all in your post, i just need to change the perspective to someone elseâŚ
But thats cheap.
Thats ok, i believe you. Nevertheless allow me to wonder why you joined.
Iâm not the person who can decide generally who to believe and who not. Such decisions everybody must make for his own, yes there can me more or less relevant criteria (like audits etc.)
But I said many times: Guiltiness must be proven. And not the opposite.
An no: I do not think that they should write everytime and everywhere that av-vendors pay. (If they never would write it - than indeed it would be a problem for me, too. But that is not the case.)
And also your posted guidelines donât contain a clear hint that it has to be written everwhere and everytime. And really: look all at example 1 in that guidlines.
Itâs your right to say that you donât trust them, but itâs not ok to generally argue that they are not trustworthy at all - without clear facts of influence on tests! Huge difference.
IndependenceâŚ
yes they and there tests depend from money (like nearly everything in this world): technologies, people, infrastructure ⌠all has to be paid. Normal. Even Comodo needs money - at least I believe.
every vendor pays the same: so we can assume, that nobody has a specific influence
they define their test-design by their own: here they are independent
the payments have no influence on the results: here they are independent
Thats for AV-C! And as long as nobody proves the opposite we can believe it or not.
What we can criticize and discuss are methodologies, test designs etc. (and many vendors do so) Cause there we can work with special examples etc. (and many vendors do so). But nobody critisies only for the part that tests are paid and that fact isnât written everwhere. Nobody ever released NDAs and Mails.
And if AV-C has no trust in you after that - itâs understandable for me. Itâs also understandable that not everybody will discuss such things in public and jump into your game. That doesnât mean that the one who shouts loudest in public is right
You must be misreading this. It was I who typed the word âproblemâ multiple times, not you. But, if you feel the need to take such a tone with me, then please feel free do so. In this case, will offer no resistance to something that I fail to comprehend.
Do you mean âinnocent until proven guiltyâ (as in the legal English term a presumption of innocence)?
Does that apply to entities? Given the way governments act with regulators and such, Iâm not sure it does. I genuinely donât know, Iâm just asking.
edit: No, possibly not. According to EU Law it seems to only apply to EU Citizens and residents. But, then again IANAL and not very familiar with corporate law, EU or otherwise, outside of my direct experiences of it.
if my tip was unwise, then i am sorry! I wanted only help, cause you both wants answers. - Answers that no one can give here till now. So maybe it will easier to contact AVC for getting your answers. I repeat, if this unwise, then i am sorry.
