On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:47:05 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > But i fail to see what any of this has to do with minors > > specifically (surely the good guidance applies after reaching the > > age of majority as well), or how law enforcement happened to sneak > > in at the end there. I suspect you're imagining some specific > > scenario that i don't know about, but i don't know what it is or > > how it relates to OpenPGP certification. > > While minors are usually smarter (or they think their are) than their > parents my thought is/ was to create a policy which shows clearly > that i try to do a proper verification, give a sig level to do my > best. In case something could happen i can show a postcard. > > I mean why do we have the possibility for a WoT verification > with it's sig levels? If i issue a sig0 that could mean i don't like > to tell because if have something to hide to the public WoT public or > i cheat. Sure if people use other policies or none they could do > the same for level 2 and 3.... :-(
Sorry for the late reply.... I like to give a (fictitious) example. A person with bad things in mind could theoretically use anonymous email services via Tor or Remailer Services via Tor, with a proper looking name used in his/her email/nym address. I believe that a lot of people do not care to much from what domain an email arrives, as long as the email is not spam. With my approach there is a postcard. With the currently used validation model people would have a hard time to find the bad person, in case he / she would abuse the WoT. Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
pgpgoHvKLfilo.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
