[lca2018-chat] Keysigning BOF

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Jessica Smith <jessica at itgrrl.com> [2018-01-25 16:02 +1100]:
> Hi Daniel - would you say that the confidence level for signing keys where
> we've checked driver licences/passports would be "I have done very careful
> checking" or "I have done casual checking"?

Note how neither of those make any statement about the credibility
of the ID provided. They only refer to your own level of diligence,
which is independent from e.g. my level of diligence.

Beware, I have a very strong take against mass keysignings.¹ But if
you must engage in keysignings, please consider formulating and
publishing your policy. Unfortunately, my web server is down and on
the other hemisphere, but the document is here for now:
http://scratch.madduck.net/madduck-key-certification-policy.txt

This will make keysigning just a little bit more useful. But the
core problems remain. You know, the weakest link of the chain, and
stuff…

¹) Again, webserver, hence: http://scratch.madduck.net/2008.01.28%3Aon-the-point-of-keysigning.mdwn

-- 
@martinkrafft | http://madduck.net/
 
if voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
                                       -- revolution books, new york
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: digital_signature_gpg.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1118 bytes
Desc: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
URL: <http://lists.lca2018.linux.org.au/pipermail/lca2018-chat/attachments/20180125/45197059/attachment.sig>