> The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
I'm saying that goal has failed. Setting up a company has a low, fixed cost for bad actors and there's plenty of malware signed by EV code signing certificates.
> not a $10 domain name
IMO domain names are worth a lot more than $10 once you start building a brand on them. For example, cars.com values their domain at $800 million dollars [1]. Obviously they couldn't sell it for that, but that's what they consider the brand value to be.
I can start a "legal entity" for much, much less than the value I attribute to my domain. For small developers and good actors, I think being able to build identity around a domain based brand would be useful.
Or, if it's _really_ about accountability, all code signing certificates should be issued to individuals who have validated their identity through a notary. And not using the terrible system the current CAs are using where some poor bastard in a developing country is expected to verify identity documents from a bajillion different legal jurisdictions.
I guess I just hate the high pricing and terrible, terrible product that code signing certificates have become.
1. https://domaingang.com/domain-news/cars-com-domain-was-value...
in event of subsequent abuse the stores want to ban an organization
The goal is to validate and associate a legal entity with a developer account, not a domain name.
In addition to being required to do such things in many jurisdictions for tax reasons, in event of subsequent abuse the stores want to ban an organization - not a $10 domain name.