Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:30:43 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (Manoj Srivastava's message of "Wed, 31 May 2006 14:48:13 -0500")
- References: <20060527211248.GB5547@mauritius.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060530122610.GD18897@country.grep.be> <email@example.com> <20060531043213.GA6301@thunk.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> The person who I thought was Marting has apparently revealed
> that the identity documents that were preseted to the key signing
> party participants were ones that did not come out of a trusted
> process. Typically, the identity papers are produced by official
> bodies, like governments, that have international treaties in place
> to assure a minimal conformance of identity checks.
Once more, "trusted process" depends on the truster, and varies from
person to person. There is no objective standard of "trusted
process"; there are only processes that a given person does or does
not trust, processes that a given person should or should not trust.
Certainly you and I may not trust the Transnational Republic, but we
do *not* have reason to think that nobody should.