-
I’m talking about the case, you talk about AVC, I’m on topic, thanks
-
read the blog and read the bottom line of the emails.
-
Could you show me the LAW in US where says that publishing confidential information is not illegal?
-
As I said before only a fan will accept the proofs in Melih blog as a threat, and ordinary lawyer will drop that accusations easily. “I may publish…” xD
-
I explained to you 2 post ago, go back and read.
-
DACS is just an anecdote of what is also important for this company, security and build castles in the air to make noise.
Erm… AV-C is the subject of this topic (literally) and I didn’t say you were not on topic. Reread my post.
I’ve read Melih’s blog in detail, multiple times. You are going to have to highlight this for me as I said before.
Personally, I don’t know much about US law. But, you want me to show you something that doesn’t exist? I think it would be much easier if you just prove your assertion that publishing “confidential information” is illegal… or, at least, where you got that idea from.
Your number 5… yes, I’ve done that. And I cannot find the answer to my questions. Can you also highlight this for me please. Thanks.
Don’t be lazy go to the blog, press ctrl+f and write “confidential” and then read.
Please dont make yourself fool and use google: puvlish confidential information is punish - Google Search
Don’t be lazy come on xD
I wrote this time because I saw the murderer rejoicing againg in this crime
Perhaps I was not clear. I see nothing there that supports your assertion that Melih has lied to me.
Lazy?!? This has nothing to do with me being lazy! On the contrary, this is your assertion, not mine. Now stop messing around, support your assertion or withdraw it.
I don’t know what you’re used to, but when you call someone a liar (in public), you’d better have the evidence to support it!
Again calling me lazy?!? Is this some sort of joke? Seriously, did you actually read the results of your Google search? I’m guessing (hoping) not. Once again, this is your assertion (publishing “confidential information” is illegal) so you have to do the work to support it! Duh! 88)
BTW I’m assuming you know the difference between: Civil & Criminal… and Government, Private & Public. Right?
And since you didn’t show me your answers to my questions…
Since you seem to be trolling currently, please explain to me what you are doing and why? What suddenly provoked such a response from you many months after the event?
edit…
I must admit, I discounted this as an answer…
I wrote this time because I saw the murderer rejoicing againg in this crime.. mainly since there wasn't any ■■■■■■ that I know of.
Yes men you are lazy. from Melih blog publish in public:
Here is a confidential preview of your results, I do not expect changes.
[i]Dear Umesh,
first, thanks for your mail. I want to clarify, that this E-Mail is confidential.[/i]
There are more examples you can find them
I see you didn’t read it you prefer to write a nonsense here xD
Really again? are you blind? or are you trolling
READ:
I wrote this time because I saw the murderer rejoicing again in this crime 3 or 4 posts above. That the reason, I write when I want I don’t need to ask you for permission.
But the best of everything is that here seems that everybody forgot that Melih started to make false accusations against AVC. This is clearly another way to blackmail because he wasn’t getting what he wanted.
[u][i]
it simply not true that we do not test for protection. Also it is technically wrong what Melihwrote He is blaming himself. And as we see users are recognizing that and writing this to us.
Post2
Re: Comodo AV Database update page
Read the links to the posts in the blog
OK. I’ll try to make this very simple…
Despite what you may think or believe, you have shown me nothing to support either of your main assertions…
- Melih has lied to me.
- Publishing “confidential information” is illegal (criminal).
So, you had better check your facts (checking with somebody else might be best). You must either support or withdraw you assertion that Melih lied to me.
I don’t really care much about your “publishing confidential information is illegal” assertion, that’s just making you look ill-informed and somewhat lacking in experience.
PS it’s “man”, not “men”. As in; Oh man! You’re such a sock puppet. 
LoL now that you have the proof you don’t want to talk anymore xD
Please use the dictionary to understand the difference btw illegal and criminal, it’s really a pity to read what you write.
To make this simple, just think a little bit and put the facts in a time line.
- Melih starts to make false accusations/lies about AVC in his own forum in order to blackmail AVC and get what he wanted (read the blog and the links to CIS forum)
- AVC says that they will do the same if Melih does not stop.
- Melih setup a castle in the air to appear like a victim.
Don’t forget that Melih is the only one that has to lose if it’s false accusations.
For confidential stuff… many things that are spread of the internet are confidential but no one makes big deal of it.
Melih wouldn’t waste his time on publishing such info.
You have provided no proof. Look, I’ll do it to you…
/example=on
This is definative proof that you’re not only a bare faced liar, but also a troll and a really poor one at that!
I wrote this time because I saw the murderer rejoicing againg in this crime/example=off
See? I can do it too. You’re making no sense at all. You cite stuff and give no explanation of why you think it supports your assertions. You might as well just cited stuff randomly, like I did, for all the sense it made.
The difference between? You’ve got to be trolling! Other than you, who said or even implied that illegal = criminal? I said “illegal (criminal)” and “civil and criminal”, which are both perfectly valid.
1,2 & 3: Facts in a timeline? What a load of preposterous drivel. You have a very strange, although mildly amusing, definition of the word “fact”. Unless… you are now saying that AV-C denies sending those emails to Comodo? Or, perhaps, AV-C are now denying threatening Comodo?
AV-C are threatening to do that same? Well, according to your rather fanciful story, that means AV-C are threatening to lie and act illegally… or (according to me)… be threatened by Comodo and tell the truth. Which is it?
Melih is not to blame for the publication of the contract since AV-Comparatives had threatened to do so in the first place.
However, AV-Comparatives would lose more if they didn’t publish their deal with Comodo which made plainly obvious that their fees don’t affect their results.
In the end AV-Comparatives lost some credibility to the business world but gained more to their public.
Yes, Melih has been criticized on numerous occasions for micromanaging PR. He does remind me of Derek Smart on the Usenet in the 90s.
Ouch that’s harsh! CIS’s graphics are way better than that!
Do i understand it right?
To SAY, i would publish confidential things to answer and respond to the texts of a person if this person continues to write them, is a crime?
And if they had just opened up their own blog, for snowball battle, and PUBLISHED the “confidential” to answer (without speaking about the intention before), maybe even wasnt anything at all?
If thats the case, i would have said: They shouldnt have spoken about it before they would do it, because thats bad 
But somehow i am sure, if they just had did it, they would be accused here for doing it without a warning.
(If they had done it.)
An indicator of “word” bending: Its not primary important what happens, but how it can be defined.
I just call it as I see it. I follow a philosophy of “do what is right for our users, money will follow”.
If i see someone doing wrong, you can usually bet that I would be the first one confronting them and outing them because its the right thing to do. I will not be a by stander!
AVC are doing wrong.
1)you can’t threaten your customers and blackmail them to change their opinion or they will release confidential information (just because one of the partners got angry)
2)you can’t try to hide the fact that they get paid by AV companies for their tests.
3)you can’t pretend that you are independent while getting paid by AV companies.
4)you can’t mislead public that “detecting few dead files on your computer” is protection in this day and age.
and so on…
I will be the first one to support AVC if
1)they get a 3rd party validation of their methodologies and results (have offered $50,000 towards that)
2)get certified (eg ISO etc…as other professional organisations like ICSA)
3)be transparent about their relationship with AV vendors.
I think end users deserve this honesty and transparency.
Melih
I’m not certain how to answer… lordraiden asserts that it is illegal to disclose confidential information and I disagreed with that assertion. Specifically relating to the AV-C issue, I don’t believe it is illegal (ie. a criminal act) to disclose confidential information. It would be a civil matter IMO.
The accidental release of confidential information wasn’t discussed, but I don’t think that would be illegal either.
As far as I know, it would only become illegal, or a criminal issue, when that confidential data is covered by a enacted law (national security, classified data, civil data protection, etc). But, I’m not a lawyer… so, you would need to verify this yourself.
Is this what you meant?
You citated just the first step of my argumentation. So you can not relate from that to what i meant
I expressed my wondering, that your argumentation would lead to the estimation: Just doing it would be
While speaking about doing it, would be somewhat against the law.
If “they” had written to me, i had thought: Nice that they write before they would publishing anything. I had discussed with them.
You can see the email good, or you can define it bad.
A part of a crime is “the INTENTION”. I dont see the intention “blackmail”, i see the intention “seriously, if you continue to say this, we could answer to that with elements of the former confidential files. Lets discuss.”
I personally would define “doing without warning” as bad, while i would define an “attention email” as fair, when it is meant for discussing a problem.
Blackmail is a crime. Crimes dont need to be discussed, they are written in books. A crime is not existing just because someone “feels”.
Example: If you tell your children, dont climb on the roof, or you dont get (…)! The kid could say, i was blackmailed!
Example 2: If someone says things “wrong” (2 points of view), and it can only be answered with words from a (civil) confidential file (valid between them only), it is not blackmailing to write “we would answer with that words, if you continue to say yours”. If the correct answer is in the confidential, do you lose the right to answer?
(I dont know the confidential, so i can speak like everyone else in general only. And the general should reflect both sides of a coin.)
Speaking about breaking a contract? No, that would not be against any law… or even a civil matter as far as I know. Unless the contract specifically prohibited speaking about breaking the contract. But, to be clear… actually breaking or voiding a contract is generally not against the law anyway.
Are you referring to this actual incident or a hypothetical one? Because there was no “lets discuss” in this case. It was neither implied or explicitly stated as far as I’m aware.
Kids do say this. And it’s quite often true. Of course, it’s not AFAIK illegal to blackmail your kids… well, I hope not anyway… “… or I’ll get/tell your Mother!” always worked so well for me.
I don’t know, I guess it depends on the circumstances. But remember, words can slanderous (spoken) or libelous (written) as well. Besides, in theory, there is no confidentially agreement on planet that would hold under the scrutiny of the law.
edit: On thinking about this last bit. I think that I see what you’re saying here, but AV-C’s intent was to gag (wrongly) Comodo and damage them if they didn’t comply. There was no discussion and threat was implicit. Blackmail/bullying Melih called it. I believe that I went a lot further, I called it extortion. But, in my defence, I was fairly outraged/shocked by the threat.
Hm, in my language Blackmail and Extortion is the same
Nvm, i just got especially surprised about your differencing of Blackmailing (saying to do something if) as a case for the judge, and then relativating “revealing of confidential” (the actual acting, instead of just saying it) as “is merely a contractual issue, if anything at all.”
That was my specific point of critic.
Note: I DONT use the word blackmail about this case myself. Other impressions are coincidence (of translation)!
To be fair:
They said, dont do “this” or we respond public too.
Melih says, do “that” or i dont stop to speak bad about you.
In both ways someone is demanding something with emphasis. Whats the difference?
I’ve no idea. Mainly since they said…
we have been informed about some misleading forum entries of Melih.It is really inacceptable and dubious how Melih is doing in public.
That is not a serious behaviour in this industry.
We are waiting for a response, if not, we may post our reply on
Monday in public. (e.g. we could clarify that Comodo paid for not releasing their results
- the various static detection tests etc. that were commissioned by Comodo)
We are waiting for a public rectification till Monday or deleting the respective posts:
it simply not true that we do not test for protection. Also it is technically wrong what Melih
wrote He is blaming himself. And as we see users are recognizing that and writing this to us.
… and Melih’s response was…
[url=http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/]Blog post[/url].
It should be noted that as far as I know, AV-C actually require an extra fee to release (publish) results and Comodo merely opted not to pay that extra fee. Additionally, looking at what AV-C were actually complaining about… I cannot really see what they felt Melih was doing that was in conflict with their agreement. He was abiding by the agreement, by being deliberately vague on some things or just simply not addressing points (something that he’s frequently accused of recently). I can only imagine that either AV-C were reading things between the lines (there’s nothing between the lines… tricky medium forums) or that someone was pushing their buttons behind the scenes and helping them to see things between the lines. Given their response and content of their email, I suspect it was the later personally.
But, all that was utterly irrelevant by this point. The deed had been done. AV-C had threatened Comodo and there was no way that Comodo could continue an active working relationship with an organisation that behaved like that. In addition Melih did not, as you seem to imply, issue any demands of AV-C… he did what any good CEO would do… he acted.
PS AV-C probably should have complained (not threaten) to the Mods anyway… that’s our domain not Melih’s. Odd as that may sound, it’s quite true. Melih (Comodo) owns the forums sure. But, the Mods run the forums for the members. It’s “our” (the members) forum. It’s always been that way, that’s how Melih set it up.
Now Symantec dropped AV-Comparatives because their tests are not relevant!
Any company offering 21st century protection will find AV-Comparatives’ tests irrelevant.
and here is what Symantec said:
Any AV provider, who has moved into the new model of protection and not following 1980’s “detection” technique will find AV-Comparatives’s current methods “irrelevant”.
AV-Comparatives: Please change your ways, be relevant, be transparent, stop misleading consumers and get Certified!!! Heed the warning signs!!!