[SGVLUG] CAcert Web of Trust?

[Emerson, Tom]

> -----Original Message-----
> John E. Kreznar
> "Greg Stark" <gstark at electrorent.com> writes:
> 
> > If there are no objections, I will post an announcement to 
> the CAcert 
> > BLOG, that SGVLUG will have a registration at the April meeting.
> 
> The power of strong cryptography is that it enables each 
> individual, acting alone, to effectively defend herself 
> against the body politic. Reliance on identity documents 
> sanctioned by that very body politic is at odds with this ideal.

Hmmm... Interesting comment, but I'm not entirely sure if you meant this
as an objection to a cert-signing party or not...

> The owner of an encryption key earns trust by digitally 
> signing consistently trustworthy messages, not by registering 
> with a certification authority such as CAcert.org.  Linking 
> trust to government ID dilutes and sullies earned trust.  As 
> well, it requires the ID holder to enter into contract with 
> government.

I think there are some confused issues here (though I might be the one
confused)  As I understand it, the purpose of signing certificates is to
ensure the identity of the holder, not necessarilly the trustworthiness
of that person -- after all, anyone could apply for a certificate and
claim to be "Obi Wan Kenobe", though it might raise an eyebrow or two if
the e-mail address registered to the certificate was
"vader at darkside.force" [substitute your own favorite adversaries as
appopriate]

What, in this context, is a "consistently trustworthy message"?  After
all, signing the message "the sky is falling" 100 days in a row would be
"consistently trustworthy" -- the "trustworthiness" may be zero, but it
would be *consistently* zero and that's what counts...

> - -- 
>  John E. Kreznar jek at ininx.com 9F1148454619A5F08550 
> 705961A47CC541AFEF13
> Q: What nationality are you?
> A: My true answer is that I don't know.  If nationality is 
> something that requires the consent of the alleged national, 
> well, I don't consent (whichever the nation).  On the other 
> hand, if nationality is something that can be imposed without 
> regard to consent, well, then I'm the wrong person to ask.

Are you sure you're not a co-writer of the movie Warner Brothers
released last week -- "V for Vendetta"? :)