3 ms·
Lmao, key-signing parties are bad as a concept but signed by a public administration is up there. Have PGP, have a web of trust with...people you actually trus
by piuantiderp 3y ago
Lmao, key-signing parties are bad as a concept but signed by a public administration is up there.
Have PGP, have a web of trust with...people you actually trust.
- kkfx 3y agoA web-of-trust with ONLY people I trust/know personally means a small island. Maybe useful in some VERY limited context, but definitively not in general. Let's state instead a fictional scenario: you got an email from John Doe, is really from him? Well, if it's signed with a GPG key signed by a government authority probably yes (at least, if it's not him he have successfully steal card&credentials to sign his key or something even more complex). Did you know the small "key-icon" GMail offer in it's WebUI for "trusted messages" from some well-known vendors? Well, with this you can replicate the same with anybody in Germany, trusted not by a private company but by a government authority. It's still marginal since most would not use such system, but potentially it's a pretty logic idea and a very good news.
- piuantiderp 3y agoI'd argue there is nothing worth encrypting that John Doe could communicate. Anything important in this world is best left only to people you trust. What is John Doe gonna do for you?