[BartjeD]

There is no law appointing that organization as a world wide authority on tainted/non tainted sites.

The fact it's used by one or more browsers in that way is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Because they, the browsers, are pointing a finger to someone else and accusing them of criminal behavior. That is what a normal user understands this warning as.

Turns out they are wrong. And in being wrong they may well have harmed the party they pointed at, in reputation and / or sales.

It's remarkable how short sighted this is, given that the web is so international. Its not a defense to say some third party has a list, and you're not on it so you're dangerous

Incredible

[snowwrestler]

I love all the theoretical objections to something that has been in use for nearly 20 years.

[jtwaleson]

As far as I know there is currently no international alternative authority for this. So definitely not ideal, but better than not having the warnings.

[BartjeD]

Yes but that's not a legal argument.

You're honor, we hurt the plaintiff because it's better than nothing!

[account42]

The alternative is to not do this.