[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Keysigning without physically meeting ... thoughts?

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

Reply to: