Re: Why are in-person meetings required for the debian keyring?
Christian Kastner dijo [Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:30:16PM +0100]:
> > In my opinion, exactly the same applies for someone you've met. I think
> > it's a lot easier to get a forged id than to establish a history of
> > valuable contributions.
>
> Well, it depends. A forged passport[1], if one even knows where to get
> it, will cost you thousands of dollars or euros, and would furthermore
> constitute a serious criminal offense. I wouldn't call that easy.
Hundreds of dollars here (depending on the degree of
"forgedness"). Passports good enough for international travel. Why?
Lets say that... I just happen to know ;-)
That's one of the reasons I don't care too much for government-issued
IDs. That's why I didn't ask you to provide me with one. But at the
same time, that's the reason why I (that happen to be a terrible
physionomist and often don't recognize people) cared enough to pay
attention to who is who, remember where we had lunch and what we
talked about, and can reasonably describe your face. Of course, that's
the reason I signed your key. That's also, however, why I didn't sign
some people's keys: If I don't recall enough details about a person to
satisfy my personal validation, I won't sign.
Of course, given the example Paul said about Santa Claus: I *do* sign
based on pseudonyms. Of course, on well-established and
well-recognized pseudonyms. I don't know nor care about the real names
of several of the people I have cross-signed with.
> [1] A passport is the only form of identification some people were
> willing to accept from me. I myself have only accepted these save for a
> few exceptions, where I accepted a US driver's license but was otherwise
> certain of the person's identity.
When somebody asks for my govt-issued IDs, I take care to explain the
inconsistencies they usually have. Like my driving license having
"permanent" validity, or my voter ID card stating I'm 35 years old
(the previous one said I was 29 until I lost it in France; the
previous one, 20).
Reply to: