[Freedombox-discuss] Would you sign a key with a pseudonymous keyholder name?

[Nick M. Daly]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > The whole point of key-signing is that you're verifying that you do
> > know the providence of the data signed or encrypted by that
> > key. Anonymity is the opposite of that. If you want anonymity, then
> > you don't want public key encryption. They are not compatible.
> 
> Did you mean to say, "if you want anonymity, then you don't want key
> signing"?

Probably.  Given how researchers could uniquely re-identify a third of
nameless Twitter and Flickr users based on the social graph alone [0],
you might either want to avoid key signing or avoid any overlapping
(reference) social interaction.

Also, how'd we get back to "web-of-trust" vs. "web-of-verified-identity"
again?  Given all the different social understandings of the issues in
different contexts, the relevant interpretation seems User * Context
based (e.g., 5 users * 6 contexts = 30 interpretations).  As Jonas
mentioned, social standards can offer direction but the choice and
interpretation still seems based, ultimately, on the user and signing
statement.

/me lights up the dkg signal

0: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006



_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE