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
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
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 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, the
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
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 are
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 you
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
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 everyone to
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 deception and
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 in the
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, you
speak of
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 point.
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 paragraph above,
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-posted message
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 what your
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 too many words to see
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 correct, the same
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] 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 the
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; since
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.
If what I've read about
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
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 no
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 you
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 people
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
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.
If
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 rather
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, it
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 turns out
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 reported.
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 about
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 forgeries.
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, and let /.
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 whatsoever --
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 untainting
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 tainted, and
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, with
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 rather
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 list
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
authenticated
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
