The police? Huh?
You seem to have transferred what I said about using subscriptions (taxes) to fund an independent organisation (the police in this case) to AV-C… and, unless I’m mistaken, this doesn’t apply to AV-C. Besides, as I previously stated, even law enforcement (the police) is subject to vigorous independent audits and scrutiny anyway, which AV-C are clearly not.
So would I loose trust in the Police if they were not subject to independent audits & scrutiny? Yes, I would.
You simply have no proof showing that antivirus vendors are paying AV-Comparatives the same do you?
I spoke about the “combination of getting paid equally, and claiming to be independent”. It is not an opposite thing. So the example fits.
What you say is about the proving of the independence. Thats a good thing. Of course. But if the village officer isnt tested or not, would not given automatically a doubt about the officer.
I dont say, a test of testers is not usefull. But i say, equally paid is not contra being independent. Sometimes its even a “basis” for independency.
I trust you 
But, what you’re implying here is that all AV vendors pay a subscription to AV-C to be an independent testing NPO and this is not true. Some AV vendors pay AV-C a fee to test their product. And that is very different, unless you’re confusing a private security firm with the Police.
Let me rephrase a previous statement…
Would I loose trust in the Police if they were subject to same level of transparency, scrutiny and accountability as AV-C? No. I wouldn’t have any trust in them to loose in the first place!
BUT the “not payers” are not tested with this test. So no actual payer has an advantage against the participiants with him who do the same, and he also has no advantage against non participiants, regarding to the result.
Again, i didnt spoke about the quality of the claimed independence, or the level of my trust. While the independence claim can be justified under equal payment, thats the point. Determining the quality is case for the supervision. I can not look in others heads and experiments of tests. And no one can foresee assumptioning any tendency as fact without leaving fact for fiction until proving.
If its that you want a test (for your confidence), say it. Its just problematic to decorate this wish with wild assumptions. This is my argument line.
Unfortunately, as has been said many times, since AV-C lack all that the Police have in this regard this cannot currently be determined one way or the other. That’s the point I believe.
It was both your analogy and question. So, allow me ask of it you (reasonably modified)…
Would you trust your Police Force if they were subject to same level of transparency, scrutiny and accountability as AV-C?
Independence is possible and can especially be based by equally payment of all participiants in the range.
This is what i said about both. And theres nothing wrong here.
The differences in the range lead to an additional conclusion:
Of course its mandatory to have tests of people who have force, and who you CAN NOT choose interactive.
But in all cases were people/vendors choose a “tester”, they could revoke it all time. So they are interactive parts of the supervision. Their choice is the judgement. So there is not “no testing”.
Antivirus comparing. That is testing what antivirus does by name, expectable. Its allways not 100% objective, as tomorrow is another day, with other users and other malware.
If this would be consequent, search all free testers which havent been tested yet. For your confidence.
My analogy wasnt about trust. It was about claimable equally paid independence.
As we both saw/see that police and av-c have nothing in compare beyond that they could claim been equally paid independent, i wonder why you try to let me answer a question which would exactly take them as further compareable 
Sorry, I’m finding your analogies hard to understand. So, for my sake, I’ll try to keep this simple…
Firstly, please highlight my “wild assumptions” (or tame ones), thanks.
That was a bit unfocused from my side. I quoted you, and a line between the texts didnt put away the relation to you. Was in general:
Who wants to have a test for his confidence should just say that, … instead of creating an importance by making assumptions like
“claiming independent though taking money, /cant call independent when taking money” (its simplified and biased wording, so anyway not real accurate, but makes it suggestive)
“lost trust in public” (thats “uncreating trust” by speaking for an invisible majority).
And some more examples.
Nvm. I understand your point. And i would say my point again.
I think, if there would have been a fair and well worded description and formulating of a test wish all the time, maybe i had not cared about this like i dont care about tests most of the days. But when i read a suggestive sentence, or a fact calculation with suggestive structure, i accept the challenge 
I ran lately over a post somewhere in the internet. It was like: It seems as if “creating trust” would require for some to create mistrust on others first.
I can understand how this poster looks at it.
Its all about protecting the end user both from malware and misinformation. What AV-Comparatives.org is doing is spreading misinformation and disguising the fact that they get paid by Antivirus vendors. So public who reads their reports read it with the misunderstanding that these tests are independent (which we all now know that they are NOT!).
Its a shameful practice for $$!!! People who are employed by AV-Comparatives gets good salaries. They create a good living for themselves and hide behind “non for profit” marketing gimmick. Non for profit doesn’t mean that you don’t pay very good salaries…and they do! Its a shameful shameful way of making money by feeding misinformation to unsuspecting public! They don’t deserve public’s trust!
Melih
So, did comodo only get up to ~90% because these tests are not independent? Maybe with a setting that no “public default” user would ever use? I am not sure if i understand your source of accusing.
You are easy at hand with generalyzing your personal judgement, and recruiting the invisible majority for it.
Thats not how i expect someone to argument who really can claim to have the proof.
If this is the case, why should they manipulate the results then?
Maybe av-c should have just joined the certificate business. Good guys with high salaries… We would have to take their word then.
FYI: around 90% for PE was good according to Andreas …so we are quite happy with our detection tbh since its not even first line of defense.
The point is: They claim to be “independent” but they take money from AntiVirus vendors and they are not open about it…its all proven!
They claim to be Indepedent “proven”
They take money from AntiVirus vendors “proven”
They are not open about it “proven”
You are entitled to trust people who do the above…but public with any sense would take their results with a pinch of salt until they get audited, although Comodo got a good detection ratio!
Melih
Yes, if a result is good, its a good result. But if it was not-independent, it wouldnt be a “result”, but a fake. No matter what the name of the product was.
You forgot the words, take “equally money from each participating” antivirus vendor. And that they are “not open about it in places where YOU want that to be printed”.
If i calculate your 3 proves, the result is not “NON-independent” as a proved fact.
I dont trust people who i dont know.
Thanks for the insult
I use to put salt with any post and result i read. For the taste
But Melih, why you can trust the results here in this case? Where you know that they are honest and reflect the real world? You have no proof for it! You have no proof that this results are real and the truth! Its only a question of trust again! I can make nearly the same video, but i will fake it! I will make Comodo only 10% detection and the others i will do 90%! But u will not see that i have fake, cause i do cut it so that it looks totally real! So what you would say then?
Why you want no proof here? Here it is so easily to trust for you.
I trust this Video and the producer too … but i still ask me why in this case you dont need proofs but with AVC you need a proof!
I rarely think that people would waste their time of faking a test. I would like to see you make a fake video.
No, i will not do it Valentin. … I mean only that we have no proof for it! We only do trust!
the best way would be to look at many reviews(lets say 5-10) and make then your opinion about it. if it performances well in most of them and the results are similar than I doubt that those tests were faked and therefore trustworthy.
sure, right! you trust them or not… but you have no proofs! You decide by yourself! It is only your personaly opinion!