Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
> > > the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the
> > > applicant closes the eye/hand loop. Neither is sufficient without the
> > > other.
> >
> > But it just has to be a picture, not photo ID, and it doesn't need to be
> > verified by anyone other than the applicant?
>
> Yes, with some reservations. Specificly this is true if and only if the
> applicants key is signed by a Debian member. Without this "handshake"
Indeed. That was the entire point of my initial email. Remove the
need for an image if the key has already been signed. Should I
rehash, repost or could you take a look at
<20000731005548.A12428@ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au>.
> In addition please note that a photo ID or passport is a _stronger_
> presentation of face, and is more desirable because it provides official
> connection between the photo and the named keyholder.
>
> For me, it would be harder to provide a recent photo, that it would be to
> provide a copy of my passport, so I appologize if I'm a bit incredulous
> about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
> technical argument (the applicant does not have access to scanners,
> etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a lack of "connectedness" with
> the "technological" society they wish to enter. This may sound harsh, but
The issue is not technological (access to scanners) but socitial (whether we
trust existing maintainers or not). Your position is we should NOT trust
existing maintainers but ask all current and future developers to put
their faith in the DAM and AM. My position is that we SHOULD trust existing
developers.
Anand
Reply to: