Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> >>> Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
> >>>
> >>> In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
> >>> speak of deception and forgery. Nothing in the reports of the
> >>> recent incident involving Martin suggests any deception and
> >>> forgery. What about this incident makes you think that any kind
> >>> of deception or forgery was going on?
> >>
> >> I really think either you are deliberately being obtuse, or
> >> nothing I can say will get this through to you. I fail to see how
> >> one can assert that there was no forgery going on -- do you
> >> automatically assume that if a shiney laminated document with some
> >> random issueing authority listed on it is not forged?
> >
> > What Martin Krafft showed you was,
>
> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
You already know that, though you can't be sure. Just as you can't be
sure that he was a forger, either.
> > according to what he claimed,
>
> If I claim to be president George Clooney, and show you a
> document that proves I am such, and I earnestly claim it was not
> forged, but Bubba looked at all kinds of documentation that says I am
> such a person, you would proclaim from the roof tops that no forgery
> occurred?
No, I wouln't do that. However, I wouldn't start proclaiming the
opposite from the roof tops, either, like you seem to do.
> > a document that was made by the Transnational Republic. If he had
> > changed some things on that document, then it would have been a
> > forgery; however, he claims he has not, which would imply that it is
> > not, in fact, a forgery.
>
> Riiigt. And I am Angelina Jolie.
Oh, get real.
Why do you keep claiming that he did deliberately change things on this
Transnational Republic ID card?
It is your duty on a key signing party to proof your own identity to
other people, and to make sure that the proofs of identity other people
give you are sufficiently convincing to you.
Martin did that; he showed you a card which stated that he is Martin
Krafft. Of course that doesn't mean he actually _is_ Martin Krafft; you
have to check that card to make sure you have reason to believe the card
is telling the truth.
> You know, I give up. Apparently there is no way I can convey
> the concept of trusted paths and trusted processes
Sure there is. I couldn't agree with you more than that an ID card given
out by a body of people whom I'd never heard of before this discussion,
and that is _not_ a government, is not at all sufficient proof of ID for
me to sign their key. On the point of trusted paths, we agree.
However, "trusted processes" do not lie with people who are trying to
convince you of their identity. If you trust anyone to tell the truth
about their identity, which is what your argument implies, then you have
processes that are anything but trusted. It is you who would seem to
have to be educated about what "trusted processes" actually means, not
me.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: