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

Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:

>         Once he has broken faith, nothing coming from that source can
>  be accepted, since the source is now tainted.  Any information flow
>  with that origination is tainted, and since you offer the same
>  statements, without any form of untainting that is visible, I think
>  you are rapidly approaching the untrusted relay category.

What I don't see is what exactly the scam *was*.  

It seems to me that you are saying that presenting an ID which should
*scream* to anyone paying the least attention "this is not a
government ID", has, ipso facto, lied.  

But no, they haven't.  They haven't forged, or been dishonest.

What is stunning here is that you check such things as expiration
dates, which don't affect identity at all as long as the picture is
recognizable, and you don't check such things as whether the country
named on the ID is a real country or not.

If anything, it is you whose signatures are suspect, you who have
essentially declared "I don't bother checking whether the country is a
real country", and are now defending the principle that you apparently
shouldn't have to.  (Or perhaps it's that you really did think that
the Transnational Republic is a real country; is that it?)

By contrast, I *do* read such things as what the issuing authority is
whenever I check IDs.  So Martin's shenanigans wouldn't have suckered
me in.

If what you did was to say "hey, people should know that one of
Martin's IDs at the KSP was from a non-government of dubious
reliability, so they should consider not signing their key if they may
have been mistaken", that would be fine.  What you said was *much*
stronger, and impugned his honesty.


Reply to: