View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0000650Main CAcert Websitewebsite contentpublic2015-02-16 10:01
Reporterlaw Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeveritymajorReproducibilityalways
Status needs workResolutionopen 
Summary0000650: Misleading information in website content
Descriptionpages/wot/3.php:22

You must sight at least one form of government issued photo identification. It's preferable if 2 forms of Government issued photo ID are presented, as less points may be issued if there is any doubt on the person by the person issuing points;
Additional InformationPlease use an easier sentence which is not misleading and explaining the current requirements correctly:
iirc:
* one govermental photo id must be presented
* a second one should be show if present.
* other documents can also be presented as additional proof
* imho giving less points is not a good practice
* if there is any doubt on the identity no assurance should be done at all.
TagsNo tags attached.
Reviewed by
Test Instructions

Relationships

related to 0000740 closed How to become an assurer is missleading 
related to 0001113 needs workBenBE Change english textes according to the wiki page https://wiki.cacert.org/Software/TranslationMisspelling 
child of 0000671 solved?Uli60 cms pages in online website need review for deprecation 

Activities

Uli60

2011-09-17 22:48

updater   ~0002458

Last edited: 2011-09-18 00:26

View 3 revisions

=> * if there is any doubt on the identity no assurance should be done at all.

wrong assumption as general rule:
assurer should continue assurance for evidence gathering reasons.
document, document, document ... and probably file a dispute later

https://wiki.cacert.org/Assurance/Training
https://wiki.cacert.org/Assurance/Training/Intro
=> Evidence:
https://wiki.cacert.org/Assurance/Training/EvidenceIntro
https://wiki.cacert.org/Assurance/Training/EvidencePNB

If you suspect there is a problem, there are several schools of thought as to how to continue.

The old teaching was to stop the Assurance, and hand back the forms. As an Assurer, this is your option, and it may be better to do that; you will have to rely on your judgement on the spot.

 * However, it has one big drawback: if there really is a problem, then you've just destroyed the evidence!
 * It might cause heightened tensions, such as alerting the perpetrator that he's been spotted.
 * It doesn't necessarily increase your safety to declare the other person UnAssurable to their face!

The new teaching is to Continue the Assurance.

law

2011-09-17 23:09

administrator   ~0002459

The f2f meeting should be completed. But if there are doubts the assurance should not be completed by entering the assurance in the CAcert systems and alotting any points.

A dispute should only be filed if there is negative confidence. Meaning the assurer is sure that assurree is trying to get assured under a different identity. Not if there are minor mismatches that prevent the assurer from completing the assurance, but don't affect the WoT (e.g. abbreviated names). Arbitration has no resources to handle these cases.

Uli60

2015-02-16 10:01

updater   ~0005325

Thought experiment:
one assuree who wants to trick CAcert, has a weak document to show ... requesting for assurances on a big event, receives assurances by 3 assurers ...
all 3 assurers have doubts about this case and stops the assurance while not entering the assurance into the online form.
one, two years later, the assuree tries it again, and an assurer following the new philosophy bringing this case to arbitration leaves the case in a bad shape
caused by 3 missing evidences ... 'cause the assurers didn't transfer anything ...

How the Arbitrator reviewing this case can contact the 3 assurers from the issue 1 or 2 years ago ? if the lesser confidence in the 3 old assurances had not been transfered ?
With the 0 AP transfered into the online system, an arbitrator is able to link the old 3 assurers with this case and can start an interview to the assurers, can request the infos from the old assurances, and now is able to bring the evidence from 4 assurances together into a final ruling that makes this case a bogus one

AP 4.3
Any lesser confidence should result in less Assurance Points for a Name.

>> If the Assurer has no confidence in the information presented,
>> then zero Assurance Points may be allocated by the Assurer.

For example, this may happen if the identity documents are totally unfamiliar to the Assurer. The number of Assurance Points from zero to maximum is guided by the Assurance Handbook and the judgement of the Assurer.

>> If there is negative confidence the Assurer should consider
>> filing a dispute.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2008-10-23 13:26 law New Issue
2011-09-17 22:38 Uli60 Relationship added child of 0000671
2011-09-17 22:38 Uli60 Relationship added related to 0000740
2011-09-17 22:48 Uli60 Note Added: 0002458
2011-09-17 23:09 law Note Added: 0002459
2011-09-18 00:06 Uli60 Note Edited: 0002458 View Revisions
2011-09-18 00:26 Uli60 Note Edited: 0002458 View Revisions
2013-01-11 15:22 Werner Dworak Status new => needs work
2013-01-11 15:31 Werner Dworak Relationship added related to 0001113
2015-02-16 10:01 Uli60 Note Added: 0005325