* Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@acm.org) wrote: > On 25 May 2006, Stephen Frost verbalised: > > * Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) wrote: > >> Explanation? What we have here is an act of bad faith, in the guise > >> of demonstrating a weakness. In my experience, one act of bad faith > >> often leads to others. > > > > pffft. This is taking it to an extreme. He wasn't trying to fake > > who he was, it just wasn't an ID issued by a generally recognized > > government (or perhaps not a government at all, but whatever). > > If you think an ID from a place that issue you any ID when you > pay for it is valid, I probably will not trust a key signed by you, > and I would also suggest other people do not. I wasn't making any claim as to the general validity of IDs which are purchased and I'm rather annoyed that you attempted to extrapolate it out to such. What I said is that he wasn't trying to fake who he was, as the information (according to his blog anyway, which he might be lieing on but I tend to doubt it) on the ID was, in fact, accurate. If you're upset about this because you had planned to sign it and now feel 'duped' then I suggest you get past that emotional hurdle and come back to reality. No one 'crack'ed anything here (that we know of anyway) and while not signing his key because of this is reasonable, or even revoking a signature which had been based on this ID, the constant inflammatory claims of Martin being a 'cracker' and how this could lead to other 'cracks' is extreme, insulting, and childish. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature