WoT question - policy

[Stefan Claas]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:47:05 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:

> > But i fail to see what any of this has to do with minors
> > specifically (surely the good guidance applies after reaching the
> > age of majority as well), or how law enforcement happened to sneak
> > in at the end there.  I suspect you're imagining some specific
> > scenario that i don't know about, but i don't know what it is or
> > how it relates to OpenPGP certification.  
> 
> While minors are usually smarter (or they think their are) than their
> parents my thought is/ was to create a policy which shows clearly
> that i try to do a proper verification, give a sig level to do my
> best. In case something could happen i can show a postcard.
> 
> I mean why do we have the possibility for a WoT verification
> with it's sig levels? If i issue a sig0 that could mean i don't like
> to tell because if have something to hide to the public WoT public or
> i cheat. Sure if people use other policies or none they could do
> the same for level 2 and 3.... :-(

Sorry for the late reply....

I like to give a (fictitious) example.

A person with bad things in mind could theoretically use anonymous
email services via Tor or Remailer Services via Tor, with a proper
looking name used in his/her email/nym address. I believe that a lot
of people do not care to much from what domain an email arrives, as
long as the email is not spam.  With my approach there is a postcard.
With the currently used validation model people would have a hard time
to find the bad person, in case he / she would abuse the WoT.

Regards
Stefan

-- 
https://www.behance.net/futagoza
https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20181116/9237796e/attachment.sig>