Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cacert-policy - Re: [CAcert-Policy] Liability for Assurers

Subject: Policy-Discussion

List archive

Re: [CAcert-Policy] Liability for Assurers


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Duane <duane AT cacert.org>
  • To: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy AT lists.cacert.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CAcert-Policy] Liability for Assurers
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:05:31 -0400
  • List-archive: <http://lists.cacert.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cacert-policy>
  • List-id: Policy-Discussion <cacert-policy.lists.cacert.org>

Iang wrote:

http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/Price

Which answers the question -- Assurers are free
to charge under any circumstances.  Is the fee
written on the assurance form?

No, CAcert doesn't set/show fees or cost recovery on any forms for Assurances. Our policy has been that any fees or cost recovery charges can be charged as long as the person being charged is notified up front, either via the assurance lookup page, or email correspondence.

Of course problems start if I falsely assure someone because he presented a forged document. If I do this it was not a good job. But even then I might have chances to escape liability if the document had been forged "well enough".


Good point.  Can we list out these cases?

  1. forged document
     + poor quality -- should have been picked up
     + good quality -- unlikely to be picked up
  2. did not follow procedure
     + through error
     + deliberately

The problem is with fake documents that aren't obviously fake, I guess banking staff are probably in the same situation here when someone opens an account with fraudulent documents, I think the banking sector can be looked at for solutions for a number of these border cases.

We have always stated that any one knowingly assuring someone falsely will be personally held liable.

IIRC german laws allow it that a company or other organisation covers (even gross) negligence for its employees/members, though you still are personally liable if you intentionally break something.

CAcert expressly doesn't cover gross negligence, since that would be kind of pointless for us to do so, since there is no stick then.

--

Best regards,
 Duane

http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom
http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP

"In the long run the pessimist may be proved right,
    but the optimist has a better time on the trip."




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page