* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote: > * 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. Indeed, to the best of my recollection the name and picture on both his Transnational ID and his official German Identification Card matched (well they weren't the same picture, but they were both pictures of him). Now of course you don't have to take my word for that, but if it's any reassurance at all, he wasn't trying to fake who he was or obtain signatures under false pretenses. He was just conducting an experiment to see how much people really *check* the ID they're looking at. It's a good lesson, and I'd rather Martin demonstrate it rather someone with actual malicious intent. As to bad faith, since most pot smokers do not become crystal meth addicts and most jay walkers do not become serial killers, I'm not concerned that Martin will begin rooting the project's boxes. > 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. -- Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature