Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, you should bring a government-issued ID, and no, having an ID
> card that is not trustable should not be considered acceptable.
This thread has already established that many governments have
untrustable ID issuing procedures. If the definition of
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:48:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, KSP's in Debian are essentially dead, as far as I am
> concerned, since the community has not come to an agreement that
> bringing Bubba's passports is an unacceptable action.
Well, for my part, it's actually sligh
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:17:28AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> If absolute trust is the only thing you will accept, then you might as
> well withdraw from Debian project, and go hide in a hole with some
> paranoiod survivalists in Montana. We can't have absolute trust; it
> is impossible. And yo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ar
On 1 Jun 2006, Frank Küster outgrape:
> To me it rather seems people are talking about how untrustworthy a
> web of trust must necessarily be, especially if you do not take into
> account manually assigned trust values. And you seem to be the
> person who proposes that, when adhering to certain p
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:48:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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, th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On 30 May 2006, Theodore Tso stated:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> What Martin Krafft showed you was,
>>
>> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
>
> So if you have no idea whether or not someone was Martin Krafft, how
> can you ask everyo
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What Martin Krafft showed you was,
>
> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
So if you have no idea whether or not someone was Martin Krafft, how
can you ask everyone to revoke all signatures for Martin
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nothing that a general software developer can do to check an
> ID is proof against a determined individual, we all assume that there
> is a gentleman's agreement in place that such an attack is not
> mounted.
If you _really_ believed that
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Nothing that a general software developer can do to check an
> ID is proof against a determined individual, we all assume that there
> is a gentleman's agreement in place that such an attack is not
> mounted.
I assume n
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Based on this thread, I would think that Stave Langasek was
> dead on: any transitive trust in Debian's keyring is
> non-existenet. So, using the signed key as a mesure of trust in the
> identity of a NM candidate by the DAMS is probably mi
On 30 May 2006, Frank Küster verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What Martin Krafft showed you was,
How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
>>>
>>> This is getting ridiculuous.
>>
>> With this I tend to agree. Your credulity is unbelievable.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess You can't read. I have never stated that I know it is
> a forgery: I can't since I do not have that data. I have stated I
> have absolutely no trust path to the identity proclaimed, so I am
> going to treat it as though it were; s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I claim to be president George Clooney, and show you a
> document that proves I am such, and I earnestly claim it was not
> forged, but Bubba looked at all kinds of documentation that says I am
> such a person, you would proclaim from th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really think either you are deliberately being obtuse, or
> nothing I can say will get this through to you. I fail to see how
> one can assert that there was no forgery going on -- do you
> automatically assume that if a shiney laminated
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What Martin Krafft showed you was,
>>>
>>> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
>>
>> This is getting ridiculuous.
>
> With this I tend to agree. Your credulity is unbelievable.
>
>> If what I've read about the incident is
On 30 May 2006, Frank Küster told this:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> Perhaps my just-posted message has to
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:50:41AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst stated:
[...]
> > However, "trusted processes" do not lie with people who are trying
> > to convince you of their identity. If you trust anyone to tell the
> > truth about their identity, which is wh
On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst stated:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> Perhaps my just-p
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
In the pa
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> >>> Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my p
On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
>>> Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
>>>
>>> In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you,
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> > Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
> >
> > In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
> > speak of deception and forgery. Nothing i
On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
> Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
>
> In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
> speak of deception and forgery. Nothing in the reports of the
> recent incident involving Martin suggests any decept
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Regardless of this, I think it would be nice to have a document (wikipedia
> article?) listing official documents of countries all over the world. KSP
> attendants need not base their decissions on this, but could be useful
> as background information.
>
> I
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:12:16PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, once someone acts in bad faith, I can't trust anything
> else they say: How do I know it is not a hoax within a hoax to see
> how gullible people are, to accept that the papers presented were not
> faked, or outright
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There
> is a certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
> delibrate forgeries.
If a key-signing method needs any particularly trustworthy behavior
from the peopl
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 09:22:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 tai
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 untaintin
On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell told this:
>>> This may be true, except that *the document was not forged*.
>>
>> So you continue to claim. And since you make statements like this
>> with no discernible means of you having verified them, I do not see
>> how discussion with you has any value whats
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If people start bringing in forged documents, no amount of caution
>>> on part of laypeople like most software developers is proof against
>>> such deception. If such deception is accepted behaviour, we may as
>>> well throw out thetrust metric, an
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There is a
>>> certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
>>> delibrate
On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There is a
>> certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
>> delibrate forgeries.
>
> Except that there was nothing forged ab
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There
> is a certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
> delibrate forgeries.
Except that there was nothing forged about Martin's ID card, as it has
been report
On 27 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell spake thusly:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But then again people could lookup say mexican IDs and visas before
>> going to a KSP in mexico so they have some clue what it should look
>> like.
>
> Actually, in the present case, I believe it
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is something, though, that I think would be a worthy addition to
> future KSPs, if we continue to hold them: Many of us have our photo as
> part of our key. Maybe if the printed sheet was not plain-text but
> included those photos that are available
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:12:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > Is there a list of official documents (with photos) that we can consider
> > acceptable for a KSP?. If there's not we definitely need one.
> > However this is ra
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then again people could lookup say mexican IDs and visas before
> going to a KSP in mexico so they have some clue what it should look
> like.
Actually, in the present case, I believe it turns out that Martin
Krafft's ID was exactly what it cl
Goswin von Brederlow dijo [Sun, May 28, 2006 at 02:50:26AM +0200]:
> >> Is there a list of official documents (with photos) that we can consider
> >> acceptable for a KSP?. If there's not we definitely need one.
> >> However this is rather tricky because the list itself should be
> >> authenticat
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
>> Is there a list of official documents (with photos) that we can consider
>> acceptable for a KSP?. If there's not we definitely need one.
>> However this is rather tricky because the
Steve Langasek dijo [Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:12:48PM -0700]:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > Is there a list of official documents (with photos) that we can consider
> > acceptable for a KSP?. If there's not we definitely need one.
> > However this is rathe
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:28:35PM +0200, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> Is there a list of official documents (with photos) that we can consider
> acceptable for a KSP?. If there's not we definitely need one.
> However this is rather tricky because the list itself should be authenticated
> somehow, w
43 matches
Mail list logo
