On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:13:54PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Tuesday 31 May 2005 14:11, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > > I wrote this up to someone. I thought I'd share it, and get your > > > thoughts. (e.g. anybody see any weaknesses in #1-#3 that *aren't* > > > present in the typical meet, check ID, get GPG fingerprint, assuming #4 > > > is always used afterwards?) > > > > Falsifying a government-issued ID is a criminal offence, regardless of > > how often it happens (using it to buy alcohol is not important; they > > simply raise the minimum age to compensate, so there's no need to > > enforce it there). Falsifying a random photograph is not illegal at > > all, and there is no reason why somebody wouldn't do it. Nothing here > > has verified their identity with any strength to speak of. A person > > who wants to generate an identity can do so with minimal effort and no > > repercussions - so why wouldn't they? > > Right, but they have to get it notarized (or forge a notary's seal, which is > a criminal offense, at least in the US) which requires government ID > (again, at least in the US). A notary doesn't certify that the document you hand them is correct. All they certify is that you handed them this particular document on this particular date. > Regardless, how is this different from meeting someone in person? The difference would be the deterrent effect. Without it, there's absolutely no reason why anybody wouldn't generate throwaway identities at whim. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature