Gervase Markham wrote: > 1) is impossible, so we do 2). So they are trustworthy by threat rather > than trustworthy by assessment.
2 isn't a threat, and there is prime examples of criminals finding people with banks accounts with the same banks that they have fraudulently accessed so they can transfer funds and the poor sap thinking he will get a cut is left paying the bill long after the fraudster picks up the money from the nearest western union... 1 isn't impossible, many people have to get background checks by police for a variety of reasons, you don't need to do the work for this, the people can do it themselves, mind you the loop hole with this is they get some other sap to be a puppet board which has no power, but will get round any problems with criminal history. This situation occurs all the time when one person has declared bankrupt and can't run a company, so they get someone else to run it on their behalf. -- Best regards, Duane http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP "In the long run the pessimist may be proved right, but the optimist has a better time on the trip." _______________________________________________ dev-security mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
