Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 27 May 2006, martin f. krafft spake thusly: > > >>Dear Manoj, dear fellow DDs, >> >>I guess I could have known that this experiment of mine would turn >>into a huge thread, unfortunately extending across two mailing >>lists. Thus, it is surely in order for me to apologise for being the >>cause that your inboxes filled up. > > > Any act of deception, meant to exploit the weaknesses of the > system rather than participating in a key signing in good faith is > likely to have had this effect, yes. > I'm sorry to join this thread, but I am wondering what Martin's deception was. As I understand it, he used a form of identification which was issued by an organization which is not recognized as the governing body of any place in particular. The identification showed his real name and real likeness [0]. He did not misrepresent any information in either obtaining the document or in presenting it to those who requested he identify himself. So, to the best of my reckoning, this is all really an issue dealing with the fact that there exist organizations which we would not trust to do certain things. I think this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. -Roberto [0] At least as far as those things have been previously known. -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature