Re: [Monotone-devel] WARNING: ~/.monotone/keys CONSIDERED HARMFUL

[Richard Levitte]

In message <address@hidden> on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:25:31 +0200, Daniel Carrera 
<address@hidden> said:

daniel.carrera> Daniel Carrera wrote:
daniel.carrera> > Now, on "identification": I think the following
daniel.carrera> > might be a relevant example: Imagine an ID card that
daniel.carrera> > has a picture of you but no name. You and I might
daniel.carrera> > disagree on whether we would call this
daniel.carrera> > identification. But it might clear up confusion if I
daniel.carrera> > say that this is an example of what Schneier means
daniel.carrera> > by "no identification". In Schneier's lingo, this ID
daniel.carrera> > card may provide authentication but not
daniel.carrera> > identification. In my recent emails I have tried to
daniel.carrera> > follow Schneier's lingo.
daniel.carrera> 
daniel.carrera> A little more on this: If I have an ID card with no
daniel.carrera> name or address on it, I am anonymous. The card might
daniel.carrera> authorize me to do something, but you still don't know
daniel.carrera> who I am. My anonymity is the reason why I agree with
daniel.carrera> Schneier saying that this card does not provide
daniel.carrera> identification even though it matches my face with an
daniel.carrera> authorization.

I disagree with that notion.  Why would visual identification not be
identification?  I usually recognise people whose face I've seen, I
can identify them that way.  Thus, a picture is an identity as much as
a name is.

Cheers,
Richard ( who starts feeling that this discussion is becoming quite
academic and off-topic with regards to monotone )

-- 
Richard Levitte                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish