-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Paul
On Monday 8 March 2010 at 5:35:08 AM, you wrote:
> MFPA wrote:
>> On Saturday 6 March 2010 at 8:55:48 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
> (b) the person owns the information has the right to
>
Hi Paul
On Monday 8 March 2010 at 7:44:42 AM, you wrote:
> I am assuming that a person inhabited with the desire to protect his
> personal information would analyze the safety of using a UID with the
> information that he wants to protect.
I think you may be assuming an awful lot, especially i
Hi Mark
On Thursday 4 March 2010 at 5:25:09 PM, you wrote:
> Were I the individual, I would think long and hard about using a tool
> which would require me to defeat its features that create identity
> labels (however false or information-poor) and carry them along with
> the message. I would
On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:46 AM, MFPA wrote:
> The default configurations of PGP and gpg ask for a name, email
> address, and comment when you create a key. Last time I looked (v8.x),
> PGP would not even create a key without something that looked like an
> email address - hence the a...@b.c in my UID
Hi Paul
On Saturday 6 March 2010 at 8:54:41 AM, you wrote:
> Hello MFPA,
> During this whole debate, you have assumed one thing in your argument
> that I don't believe anyone has pointed out as being flawed. You have
> assumed that the person (I will call him John Doe) would have decided
> to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Paul
On Saturday 6 March 2010 at 8:55:48 AM, you wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
>> > (b) the person owns the information has the right to
>> > control how it is disseminated, and
This was someone's re-interpretation o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Robert
On Wednesday 3 March 2010 at 6:52:17 PM, you wrote:
> It is not reasonable that their definition of privacy will overlap with
> yours, no. I don't get to define what "privacy" means for anyone other
> than me. You don't get to define
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Mark
On Wednesday 3 March 2010 at 4:16:21 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:53:27PM +, MFPA wrote:
>> There are privacy issues, especially if user-ids on the key contain
>> email addresses. In some cases, the authorities knowing
On Feb 28, 2010, at 12:54 AM, MFPA wrote:
> On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 11:19:43 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>
>> GnuPG doesn't, at least as of 1.4.10, force you to include an e-mail
>> address in your user ID. It merely requests an e-mail address, and you
>> can just press enter and ignore the req
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi John
On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 10:21:20 PM, you wrote:
> MFPA wrote:
>> My contention is that the de
>> facto standard of revealing email addresses in key UIDs could actually be
>> mitigating *against* the use of encrypted mail, by dis
> Kind of "let's agree to disagree?"
More like, "since you are reacting emotionally and refuse to even entertain the
possibility of being persuaded, there is no point in continuing this
conversation."
I wish you a pleasant day.
___
Gnupg-users maili
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Paul
On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 11:19:43 PM, you wrote:
> GnuPG doesn't, at least as of 1.4.10, force you to include an e-mail
> address in your user ID. It merely requests an e-mail address, and you
> can just press enter and ignore th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Robert
On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 8:03:15 PM, you wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2010, at 2:21 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> I have always been taught to challenge the status quo. "Because that's
>> the way we do it" is *never* a good reason to continue doing
On Feb 27, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Keep it on the list, please, and not in private mail.
Oh, ack. I completely misread the To- line, and didn't see the cc: to
gnupg-users. My error, and my apologies to MFPA. :)
___
Gnupg-users
> And whist you have stated that you check first, you have advocated
> that it's OK not to. Somebody following your advice could land this
> hypothetical Cuban in a whole lot of trouble.
The hypothetical Cuban had a lot bigger problems the instant he shared his
public key with people he shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Robert
On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 8:23:25 PM, you wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2010, at 3:02 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> With regards to the second statement, you give a great reason
>> yourself a few paragraphs up: "If you live in Cuba and you're
Hi Robert
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 9:14:58 PM, you wrote:
> You are asserting that (a) the person who created the public key owns
> the information,
Actually, I am asserting that the public key is likely to contain
personal information appertaining to the person who created that key.
Th
On Feb 26, 2010, at 4:03 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Not including your name or your email address in the UID offers
> protection against the accidental upload scenario. But somebody could
> still generate a key with a UID suggesting nefarious activities, sign
> your key with it, and upload it. Or their UID
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi David
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 4:33:03 PM, you wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> On 2/26/10 9:49 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> I thought signing somebody's key was just stating to the world that
>>> you believe the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Grant
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 6:30:16 PM, you wrote:
> As a practical matter, even if your contacts agree to respect your
> wishes, it's still pretty easy for them to accidentally send it to
> the keyservers. Perhaps mis-typing a command
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Robert
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 6:05:56 PM, you wrote:
> On 2/26/10 12:38 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> I am *not* advocating the implementation of any form of
>> Digital Restrictions Malware (DRM).
> You can say you're not advocating DRM -- but if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Robert
On Thursday 25 February 2010 at 8:23:30 PM, you wrote:
> On 2/25/10 9:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
>> up on the servers.
> What you're advocating here is "DRM on the honor s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Paul
On Thursday 25 February 2010 at 10:30:00 PM, you wrote:
> In my case, the reason that I uploaded my keys to public keyservers was
> to make it possible for anyone who wanted to privately communicate with
> me to do so. Even if I didn't k
Hi Robert
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 3:24:29 AM, you wrote:
> Exportable signatures are meant for the case where the signer *wants* to
> attest to the world their association.
I thought signing somebody's key was just stating to the world that
you believe the claimed identity of the perso
24 matches
Mail list logo
