On 2/3/11 5:47 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Just to clarify this point:
This is not a clarification: this is a confusion. > If i meet Robert in person, show him my gov't IDs, my fingerprint, and > we exchange e-mails, Robert would probably be fine certifying this User ID: > > Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> Yes. And my signature would mean exactly that: I'd seen two forms of government ID, seen you face to face, verified fingerprints, and confirmed your email address works. > But i suspect he would not want to certify this User ID: > > Daniel Kahn Gillmor (I am really Robert Hansen) <d...@fifthhorseman.net> Correct. Because the presence of my signature means something. The *absence* means *nothing at all*, and you're smart enough to know that. I am under no obligation to make any signatures, and I am free to add whatever conditions I want to it. Maybe I don't want to sign your certificate because you're a redhead, and I've never been able to find it in my heart to ever trust a ginger.[*] Maybe I don't want to sign your certificate because it's a Thursday. Maybe I don't want to sign your certificate because I've just had a bad day and I can't be bothered. Maybe ... If you see a signature from me, you know what it means. If you don't, then you can't draw any inferences whatsoever. Why do you want people to draw inferences from my unwillingness to sign a certificate, when it's plainly obvious there are no inferences to be drawn from that? [*] Quite tongue in cheek, given that I'm a redhead myself. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
